Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Eve Didn't Need Jesus' Help?

One of the more unbiblical things Soriano teaches his flock is that Eve, the wife of Adam, is already a saved soul on account of her giving birth. This bizarre lesson from Soriano is based on a couple of verses in the Bible. First, he tries to establish that Eve did not willfully sin in Eden, but was JUST deceived by the devil in 1 Timothy 2:14 "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Soriano suggests that she was less of a sinner than Adam. Then he follows up with the next verse where he claims Paul declared Eve to have enjoyed salvation through childbirth in 1 Timothy 2:15, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." So when Cain (the first murderer) came into the world, Eve was saved.


The whole deal about the Lord Jesus coming down to earth to save mankind excludes Eve then? Wasn't it the Bible that said "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)? How could it be 'ALL' if it excludes Eve? How could she have special favors when she's the reason Adam ate of the fruit in the first place?. Is the Bible lying, or is Soriano lying?

After a thoughtful study of Soriano's "doctrinal verses" I have come to see how SHALLOWLY Soriano interprets scripture yet again. This time around, he willfully neglects the prior verses where Paul was scolding (if that is the appropriate term) women who cause disruptions while men are praying at church. Paul goes as far as telling women how to dress and conduct themselves during worship. Such words could be considered hurtful to the point where Paul reminds women of their second-class stature even in Eden. Such a lecture would have certainly disheartened any woman and Paul was sensitive enough to offer a consolation that through their childbearing (meaning rearing, teaching, instruction, care of children) they are saved (from their second class social stature) if they are to do their duties faithfully.

I doubt if Soriano even considered trying to understand WHY Paul used Adam and Eve analogously. Because his interpretation is void of awareness as to the social standing of women in the early church. When he came across the words "Eve" and "saved" in one verse, he immediately concludes Eve is saved from God's wrath.

Here's the low down on all these. Eve sinned against God and was banished from Eden, remember that. She suffered spiritual death upon eating the forbidden fruit (because she wanted to be like God) and was punished with great pains in giving birth. It does not make sense for God to punish and banish Eve then save her just because she gave birth. The fact that she's no longer in Eden, and that she has great pains in childbirth is evidence of her separation from God.

Faith alone, [Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.] in Jesus Christ alone, [John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."] is the ONLY WAY to salvation.

Teaching people that Eve saved herself through childbirth is a works-based thinking of salvation. God considers as filthy rags all manner of good works that man can accomplish in Isaiah 64:6, "But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags". There is nothing Eve could have done to wash her sins away. Only the atoning blood of Christ will do it, nothing less.

The truth is, Soriano hopes this doctrine on Eve will be a foothold for his more elaborate works-based doctrine of salvation. But he chose a shaky foothold, set on shallow interpretation. His followers only need to open their eyes and see the truth in scripture and the fallacy in Soriano's words.

No comments:

Post a Comment