Thirty attack points from the Apostle Eric answered:
11-20
(
- "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."
- 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.
- "Matt Slick tries his hand at theology when he writes, "Grace
is unmerited, unearned favor from God."
- I do not know if I am simply "trying my hand at theology." But, at the risk of being accused to 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 ever 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)."
-
Here, "Thelma" says that Eric does teach that the churches do
understand who Jesus is, but fails to understand the true nature
of salvaiton. Well, that is a pretty serious difference
wouldn't you say?
Eric repeatedly attempts to set one denominations 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.
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?
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.
Thelma offers nothing of substance in her "rebuttal."
- This 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 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.
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.
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 modelism 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 and it is unfortunate that he would move the documentation.
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 modelism. I was not entirely sure what Eric is teaching because his descriptions of God are often inconsistent and vague. Again, it Eric would care to define as doctrine of the Trinity I would be glad to rewrite my paper accordingly.
- "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.
Unfortunately Melissa has attempted to read my mind by asserting that I believe these things are symbolic. They are not symbolic at all.
Again, this kind of the logical and unsubstantiated attack is a very poor example of the "analysis" that goes on with the apostle Eric and his followers.
- In the
very short respons 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."
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.
- 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.
- 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 place the my first examination of Eric teachings
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, still a false apostle.
-
Rita is the analyst who comments 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.
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.
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.
_________________
1.
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
AND RESEARCH MINISTRY
Home | Contact | Newsletter |
Publications |
Donations | Copying and Linking |
Report an error
Copyright
Matthew J. Slick, 1996 - 2006