A response to a "rebuttal" from the "Apostle Eric"


The following is a response from the "Apostle Eric" (Eric vonAnderseck) to my critique of him here. His comments are in brown. My comments are in black text. I don't want to reproduce the entire paper of his since I do not want to violate copyright laws. So, I will quote sections of his response with my comments inserted throughout.

Eric begins his rebuttal with, "The roar of the lion is loud, but he has no teeth to bite with. These things do not move me and they should not move you. All that the Scribes and Pharisees said about Jesus was also not very flattering. 'He has a devil, why do you hear Him?'"

So, Eric begins by equating me with Satan who goes about like a lion seeking who he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). He then throws in the Scribes and Pharisees in for good measure. This is a typical response, to attack a person by equating them with someone evil.

His next paragraph is about how denominations contradict each other (even though he fails to understand what unites them in common theology of the essentials), another cult technique meant to cast 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. The psychological effect upon the reader is that it helps to set himself up as the one who teaches the truth. This was done by Joseph Smith in Mormonism as well as Charles Taze Russell in the Jehovah's Witness organization, not to mention Charles Filmore of Unity School of Christianity, Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science, etc. Each said that the present church is false and that God sent them to restore the truth.

Eric then tries to set the record straight with a series of doctrinal statements where he affirms the physical death and resurrection of Christ. This is definitely good doctrine on his part. Of course, he assumes a premillennial viewpoint which is typical of many in Christianity today, so, that is fine.

However, regarding the Godhead, Eric does not outright deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but he certainly avoids affirming it. He states, "The Church has put your faith into a box." Of course, he doesn't say what church, just "The Church." He then goes on to use phraseology best described as oneness theology which has been soundly rejected by Christianity throughout the centuries. He quotes Eph. 4:6 which says there is "One God and Father." That is fine, but he does not define what God he is speaking about. Is God a Trinity or not? Is God a man from another planet or not? Is God a single person who manifests himself in three modes, or not? Eric says, "Jn.1:1, "In the beginning was the WORD (the revelation of His plan; Jesus Christ) and the WORD was with God and the word WAS God." Still ONE God, but God is now manifesting Himself as the Saviour of the world." Again, his last statement is consistent with oneness theology which is unbiblical.

Eric goes on to quote 2 Cor. 11:4, “For if he that comes preaches another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if you receive another spirit (doctrine from seducing spirits) which you have not received, or another gospel, which you have not accepted......." This is good scripture and is very relevant here since if he is teaching modalism, then he has a false Christ. Jesus is 2nd person of the Trinity, God in flesh, who is a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit who all exist at the same time. Yet, there are not three gods, but one.

Eric goes on to admit 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? It's simple; compare what he says to Scripture, which is what I have done and found Eric to be in error.

Eric says, "Does the fallen Church not know the difference between a fallen angel and one who is sent by God? Does the fallen Church really believe that God is dead and that He no longer reveals Himself to us?" Actually, the church can tell the difference, by looking to Scripture. But, Eric begs the question. This means that he assumes the thing he is trying to prove. He says the Church is fallen but has not proved it. I have read much of his material and it is poorly thought out in relation to an apostasy of the Christian church. If he wants to establish that the Church is false, he must first, from Scripture, establish specifically what the essential doctrines are and then relate the present church's teachings to it. He has not done this.

Of course, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have tried to do this in order to justify their new theologies. Their problem is that they also started out assuming an apostasy and looking for whatever they could find to support it. Once that is established, they are then able to elevate themselves to the place of "authentic teacher." Unfortunately, they are still false.


Eric teaches that we exist as spirits in the pre-birth experience. He quotes Jer. 1:4,5, "Then the word of the Lord came unto me saying, BEFORE I formed you in the belly, I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations." He then states, "We see that God is free to do as He sees fit. I am NOT testifying to a pre-birth existence in which I functioned. All spirits came from God and we will return to Him that made us." The simple explanation for Jer. 1:5 lies in how God uses the word "know." In other words, He does not "know" unbelievers, but He does "know" believers. Jesus says to the lost unbelievers, "...get away from me, I never knew you," (Matt. 7:23). On the other hand, He says to the believers, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me," (John 10:27); Also, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?" (Gal. 4:8-9). It is a simple matter to learn how God uses the word "know." All you need to do is look in the Bible to understand the Bible. Therefore, we see that when God says to Jeremiah that He knew him, God is speaking of a salvific knowledge, not that Jeremiah was a pre-flesh spirit creature.


In his CARM EXPOSED section of his reply, he states, "Now let's look at the indoctrination of CARM concerning I Cor15:46, "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." CARM is quoting this verse to say that the body came first, that we did not receive a spirit from God (as we read in Ecc.12:7). Do you see how CARM has taken dominion over your faith and put your thinking into a box? Do you see how easily the religious system takes you captive?" Please notice here a gross error. Eric asserts that I stated that we do not receive our spirit from God. I did not say that. Eric is reading into what I have said and misrepresenting me. He then states that I am putting the readers' thinking into a box. In all actuality, it is Eric who is putting people's thinking into a box. He is trying to get them to think his way. He wants people to believe in a pre-existent spirit life -- based upon poor biblical analysis.

Eric goes on to say, "What was the apostle Paul REALLY teaching in these verses about what came first that which is natural or that which is spiritual: The apostle Paul was making a comparison between ADAM and CHRIST. When the apostle Paul is speaking of what came first and what came second he was NOT referring to the origin of our spirit which came from God. I Cor.15:45, "And so it is written, the FIRST MAN Adam was made a living soul; the LAST Adam was made a quickening Spirit." I Cor.15:47, "The FIRST MAN is of the earth, earthy; the SECOND MAN is the Lord from heaven." FIRST ---- Referring to a MAN (Adam) SECOND ---- Referring to a MAN (the Son of God, Jesus Christ) NATURAL ---- Through Adam we first came to taste our spiritual death. We inherited the fallen nature. This natural, fallen state came first. SPIRITUAL ----- Through Christ we are born from above and taste of the heavenly gift. We inherit His divine nature and eternal life. This spiritual state comes second. We see that CARM was NOT able to rightly divide the word of God on this basic doctrine. The foundation of their thinking is from the fallen Church. In what other areas are they so blatantly wrong?" (emphasis added)

Let's look at the text of what He quoted. My comments are on the right side of the table.

1 Cor. 15:41-47 My comments
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. Paul establishes that there are different types of "bodies."
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; The physical body is sown. The same physical body is raised. This is why the word "it" is used to describe both occurrences: sowing and raising.
43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; same comment as above.
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Our natural bodies die and are raised as spiritual bodies, but our spiritual bodies are physical, glorified.
45 So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Paul is teaching that the order of these bodies is natural first, then spiritual. Adam first (normal physical body), Jesus second (resurrected spiritual body). He is establishing an order of normalcy.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. see comment after table.
47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. Adam is from the earth and Jesus from heaven.

Eric states that what verse 46 is speaking about is which came first, Adam or Jesus. It is obvious which is the case. But, what we see here with Paul is the principle of what is first, not simply about Adam and Jesus and their order. It is about the physical and spiritual bodies. He is using the example of the physical state of Adam and the second spiritual state of Jesus to establish the order of our existence as is related to our earthy body and our heavenly body: Physical first, then spiritual second. In reality, it is Eric who wants to "put our thinking in a box" by having us believe that we existed in a spiritual state first and then a natural state second. He contradicts scripture which clearly says that the spiritual is not first.

Eric goes on next to say, "Jesus said to me, 'There shall be a UNITY that is not feigned and a ONENESS that is not deceitful...and Christians want a unity among believers that is not in hypocrisy and guile. Christians want to be one in love and in the Spirit. In order for this to happen, God needs to reset the original foundation of truth. This is what He has called me to do.'" Eric frequently points to how Jesus speaks to him and tells him things. Of course, this is debatable and unverifiable -- another feature of cults. We can see that Eric is misled because he teaches contrary to scripture as is pointed out below. (To jump directly to his error, go to the Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ). Therefore, since what Eric teaches is contrary to scripture in fundamental areas, it makes the rest of his teachings highly suspect.

Eric claims a commissioning from Jesus and puts a lot of weight in this and he wants the reader to believe him and whatever he says. Alright, if visitations and visions mean anything, should I also mention then how Jesus Himself came to me at my conversion and manifested Himself to me in power -- PERSONALLY!? Should I also mention that I was commissioned by Jesus to rightly divide God's word per 2 Tim. 1:11, a specific verse given to me by the Lord after several weeks of intense prayer? Would the reader then listen to me because I claim to be commissioned by Christ? I would hope not. I would expect you to compare what I say to Scripture the way the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 with the hearty approval of Paul, a true apostle. Remember, they didn't just believe Paul, they checked him out against God's word.

I must note that merely mentioning my "commisioning" from the Lord disturbs me because it takes the attention off of Jesus and onto myself. I bring it up only to say that many can claim a commissioning from Jesus. So what? Instead, if I boast, let me boast in Christ, not in my calling from Jesus. "But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world," (Gal. 6:14).

The Use of New Language

Eric quotes me in his paper under category of 5, THE USE OF NEW LANGUAGE, "One of the marks of a cult is the use of new word combinations and/or the redefinition of common terms." He then states, addressing the reader, "You will notice how your faith has been institutionalized because the Church took the words and terms that we are all accustomed to and gave these terms their own definitions. For example, who will deny that you have been taught that the word 'GRACE' means, "Undeserved favor?" The Church institutionalized your faith by putting you into a box, you were not allowed to think outside of that box." He accuses the Church of changing the meanings of words. He just says that they do it, but fails to prove it.

Nevertheless, does Grace mean "undeserved favor? Or does it mean deserved favor? We are sinners and deserve no favor from God at all. But, because of Jesus we receive grace and mercy from the Lord. In other words, those who abide in Christ will not receive the righteous judgment that is due us (Eph. 2:3). Yet, is Eric asking us to believe that God's grace is undeserved favor or is he saying that it is something that is deserved? I would hope not since the Bible says that our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6). I know I deserve nothing from God except damnation. But, because of the Grace of God in Christ, I am justified before Him by faith (Rom. 5:1).

Eric goes on to say, "So, let's not lie (let's not be hypocritical). CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY is not merely in disagreement with how God is now defining these elements, they are also saying that God must use their terms or it is not truth. They are threatening you; you are not allowed out of the box in which they have put you. They are ignoring that they also don't agree with the other 1/2 of christianity." Again, notice the false statement attributed to me. He says, "they are also saying that God must use their terms or it is not truth." Of course, I am not saying that God must use my terms. That is ridiculous. So, why would Eric assert that I want God to use my terms? It is because, psychologically, he is trying to set me against God by subtly introducing elements into the discussion that I have not stated and do not believe in an attempt to discredit me. This is again, another common tactic of people in cults. Instead of focusing on the issue, they attack the individual repeatedly.

Eric goes on to beg the question yet again by stating, "Why is God introducing NEW language to reset the original foundation of truth? Because the Church has anesthetized (put to sleep) christians [sic]to truth by using the words that the apostles Peter, and James, and John, and Paul used and making their own interpretation for these words. When the Church speaks of 'truth' for example, they are not saying the SAME thing that Paul and Peter taught about truth. So then I, as an apostle, have to RETEACH christians [sic] what these words mean." (emphasis original) That last statement scares me. What Eric is doing is saying that the whole Christian church is wrong and that he will teach us what the true meaning of words really are. This is so typical of the leaders of cults; they have the new/restored truth and will teach it to us and the whole Christian church is wrong. Now, I am not trying to attack him personally. I am simply pointing out that he has stated that he is an apostle and that it is he who will reteach people what the bible words really mean. This is simply so typical of cult groups and it is a great concern to me.

John 14:6

He goes on to say, "When Jesus said, "I am the way, the TRUTH and the life," (Jn.14:1) He was saying that truth is relative to Him. Truth must correspond to Him in order to be real. Truth can then be defined as, "Facts that are consistent with God's character, purpose, and plan concerning Jesus Christ." When I read John 14:6 (not 14:1 as he states above), I don't see it saying that truth is relative to Jesus. I see it saying that Jesus IS the truth. Who is it that is trying to redefine things here?

More warning flags

Eric says, "When I say 'truth' I am not talking about the LANGUAGE of the epistles, but how the Spirit APPLIES that language. All christian [sic] belief systems agree that 'grace', and 'faith', and 'sanctification', and 'justification', and 'righteousness' is part of the language of the gospel, (these WORDS are in the Bible for us to read) but then each take a different direction with the language (these words). This is not the Truth of Jesus Christ." Again, Eric makes profoundly unqualified statements. First of all, Scripture means what it means, not what it comes to mean as the Spirit applies it. It doesn't change meaning for different people in different situations. Second, he asserts, without substantiation, that "Christian belief systems...each take a different direction with the language (these words)." Again, he makes a statement without proving it and demonstrates how little he understands of the common doctrines of grace in the Christian church.
I attend a Baptist church, though I have been involved with the Presbyterian church for many years. Before that, I went to a non denominational church called Calvary Chapel. There were differences of beliefs on debatable issues like when the rapture will occur, but each of them used the same words the same way and taught the Grace of God the same way. They all believe in the same essential doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, Jesus' physical resurrection, etc. This is why I can fellowship with other believers in other churches. It is Eric who makes an unsubstantiated claim and then builds on it as if it were true.

Eric says, "Without the FRAMEWORK of truth christians [sic] use the TRUISMS of Adam to try to define what is real about God. The truisms of Adam is what appears true to Adam's nature and need for God, but does not represent Christ." So, what are the truism's of Adam? I don't see that term in scripture anywhere and he doesn't tell us what it means so we can determine if it is a biblical concept he is trying to identify with this phrase. Adam is the initial biblical character who fell. But, where in the Bible are the "truisms of Adam?"

Eric says, "We cannot know God by precept. The connection with God is through the Spirit and through His Truth and through His spiritual tools." Actually, we know God through Jesus. Jesus said in Matt. 11:27, "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Such basic goofs by him in such simple things does not help his claim to be an apostle.

Substitutionary Atonement

Eric says, "CARM quotes out of the 125 false doctrines to show that I do not accept Jesus' sacrifice as a SUBSTITUTIONARY work. CARM disagrees. ... On what basis do you disagree with me? Please do your research CAREFULLY. For as I said, Jesus' sacrifice was not a SUBSTITUTIONARY work, I did say it was a work of PROPITIATION. The fallen Church does not know the difference between the two. The IDEA that Jesus is our substitute creates the CONCEPT that He took our place and that God initiated a trade. On the basis of this “trade” people believe that “He took our sin” and 'we took His righteousness.' The false doctrine of substitutionism [sic] claims that Jesus became literal sin. Taken to the extreme some people say that Jesus went into the flames of hell to be punished of God in our place until God cried, "Enough." And then Jesus snatched the keys out of the hands of the devil for our release. This makes for good drama, but it's not the gospel." This is a more serious error on Eric's part since it affects the nature of the atonement.

First of all, notice the logic error that he made. I addressed the issue of a substitutionary atonement (which he admits to denying) and said that Jesus' work was propitiatory. I certainly agree with Eric that it was propitiatory (propitiation means the sacrifice that turns away wrath). My point is that I did not deny that it was propitiatory.

Second, Christ's sacrifice was also substitutionary. Substitution means to take someone's place, to replace one thing with another, etc. Here is the biblical proof that Christ was our substitution starting from the Old Testament going into the New Testament. My comments are inserted...

  1. Lev. 1:1-2,4, "Then the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, 2"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock...4And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf."
    1. Notice that God said that the atonement is on behalf of the offerer.
  2. Lev. 16:21-22, "Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel, and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. 22"And the goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness." (emphasis added)
    1. Again we see the act of substitution where the goat bears the iniquities of the people.
  3. Isaiah 53:4-6, "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed." (emphasis added)
    1. This prophetic passage tells us that Jesus bore our sins and suffered God's chastening upon Him that should have gone to us.
  4. 2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
    1. Jesus became sin for us. That is, laid upon Him so that in Him they might, as it were, die, so that we could live. In His death, He took our place.
  5. 1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
    1. He bore our sins and took our place of death so that we might live.

It should be obvious that Jesus was prefigured in the Old Testament in Lev. 1:1-2,4; 16:21-22. It should further be obvious that He not only became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21), but that "He bore our sins in His body on the cross" (1 Peter 2:24). This is indeed how Jesus took our place and paid the price for our redemption. He was the substitutionary propitiation.

Now, please notice the next quote from Eric. He says, "Jesus IS our righteousness. But did He have to BECOME sin to make us righteous? No, He only had to die on the cross and rise from the dead." Eric here directly contradicts scripture. Eric says that Jesus did not become sin where 2 Cor. 5:21 says the opposite: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." So the reader may see different translations of that verse, I will provide them below.

  • KJV - "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5:21).
  • NASB - "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him," (2 Cor. 5:21).
  • NIV - "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God," (2 Cor. 5:21).
  • RSV - "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God," (2 Cor. 5:21).

Obviously, Eric does not know what he is talking about. Nevertheless, Eric goes on to say, "The doctrine of substitutionism [sic] states that God made Jesus to be literal sin so that we could be His righteousness. The question is, "Can a high priest sin and God not judge the people?" God has said that when the priest sins wrath comes upon the people for the sin of the priest. So if Jesus as our high priest became sin, this would mean that we uncured the wrath of God, not the righteousness of God. This is why the original apostles did NOT teach that Jesus was our substitute but our PROPITIATION for sins. This is why I, as an apostle, will NOT teach that Jesus is our substitute but our PROPITIATION for sins."

We have already seen that Eric contradicts scripture about Jesus being made sin on our behalf. But, just to clarify, when the Bible says that Jesus was made sin, it is not saying that Jesus became sinful. It is saying that our sins were reckoned to his account the same way in Lev. 16:21-22, the goat bore the sins of the people. Our sins were put upon Jesus and He died with them on the cross. That is what it means when it says He was made sin.

More error from Eric vonAnderseck

I will simply quote some statements from Eric vonAnderseck's "rebuttal" to my analysis of him and follow with brief comments. Under point 4., Eric stated, "The fallen Church does not recognize a process in salvation through these elements because they have created a conversion with no responsibility. Yes, salvation is free, but it is not free of responsibility." I know of no church that teaches that being saved means you have no responsibility before God. On the contrary, the Bible clearly teaches, "He who says "I know him" but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him," (1 John 2:4). Every church I've ever been in states that when you are saved, you need to submit to the Lord Jesus and obey His word. This obedience is not to get or keep salvation, but it is a demonstration that we are saved and that Jesus is our Lord. I don't know what Eric has been reading or what churches he has been to, but they are not the same ones I've seen.

Furthermore, we are saved from the righteous wrath of God upon the sinner. This salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23). It is being justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). We are not woven into salvation through a process of us trying to be obedient to God. If that were the case, then we would be the same as the cults who teach that you must cooperate with God, by keeping certain commandments over a period of time, in order to be saved. This is false. We are justified by faith, not by faith and works.

Eric vonAnderseck continues to error in his doctrine of salvation. He states, "The Church does not understand that the salvation of the soul is an ongoing process. Forgiveness of sin begins with repentance as the soul yields to the grace of God, but salvation and forgiveness continues through each cycle of growth that bears fruit to God. I Cor.15:2, "You are saved IF you keep in memory what I preached unto you..." Jn.8:31,32, "...If you CONTINUE in My word, then are you My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you FREE." Col.1:21,23, "And you, that were (at) sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now has He reconciled IF you continue in the faith grounded and settled..."

Justification is the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is reckoned to the sinner so the sinner is declared by God as being righteous under the Law (Rom. 4:3; 5:1,9; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). This righteousness is not earned or retained by any effort of the saved. Justification is an instantaneous occurrence with the result being eternal life. It is based completely and solely upon Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (1 Peter 2:24) and is received by faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9). No works are necessary whatsoever to obtain justification. Otherwise, it is not a gift (Rom. 6:23). Therefore, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). This last statement in Rom. 5:1 says, "Therefore, having been justified by faith..." The phrase "having been justified" is in the perfect tense in the Greek. This tense signifies that the action that has been performed in the past is still in effect in the present. In other words, we have been justified by faith and are still justified by faith. Eric fails to properly balance the relationship between justification and the "ongoing salvation" that the Scriptures speak about. You see, salvation is not dependent upon what we do. It is dependent upon what Jesus did and only upon what he did. It is not dependent upon our keeping the memory of the gospel, or continuing in the word of God.

Those statements in Scripture are not statements of how we keep salvation. If they were, then we could keep and lose and regain salvation depending upon how well we keep this new law. That would be bondage all over again. Instead, we are free from bondage and no longer need to keep the law and order to be saved before God. The scriptures above merely teach us that if you do these things it is because you are saved. It does not mean that this is how you stay saved. Therefore, it seems apparent that Eric teaches you can lose your salvation and that it is retained through your effort. I would then ask anyone who believes that, have you been doing enough to keep your salvation? Where is the rest in Jesus in that?


In conclusion, I simply want to state that I am now more convinced that the "Apostle Eric" is a false teacher. He fails to acknowledge the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. He teaches a preexistence spirit state. He denies the open declaration of scripture that Christ became sin on our behalf, thereby denying the substitutionary atonement. He continually reflects upon his alleged apostleship as the position of authority. He continually points out how the church is in darkness but he is in the light.

I have been studying cults and Christianity since 1980. After studying the Bible intensely in order to be able to recognize the error, after reading thousands of pages of cult material, and after speaking to literally hundreds of people lost in cults, it is my belief that the "Apostle Eric" is a self-appointed, false teacher.

I would suggest that the reader set aside anything this man teaches, go to the Bible and look for Jesus. You do not need his alleged apostleship. You do not need my many years of cult studies and apologetic skills. You need Jesus and him alone. Remember, in order for Eric vonAnderseck to be able to get you to believe what he says, he must first denounce the existing Christian Church, claim that there was an apostasy, and then elevate himself to the place of the teacher. This is exactly how the cults get started.


About The Author

Matt Slick is the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.