Soriano The Evolutionist

"I am part of the animal kingdom." - E. Soriano personal motto

I believe Soriano is an evolutionist. And I also believe that he will deny this claim vehemently and yet unknowingly validate it at the same time. He will try to bob and weave himself from this claim and direct the discussion elsewhere using his method of picking and choosing words from the Bible and then picking and choosing the meaning of the words that best suits his opinions. He will claim to believe only in the Bible but he will also subscribe to evolution all in the same breath. Which by all means is a hypocrite's stance for a supposed man of God. The following is another proof of how Soriano undermines what is Biblical with his opinions.

Evolutionists have long kept and protected their belief of an old earth that has been around for billions of years. Of which they have not one shred of proof. The best they can come up with are two theories. The big bang and evolution of man. Both theories are just that, theories! For something to be called "a science" like this evolution lie they're shoving down our throats, it has to go through the scientific process of proving. They have to be observable, testable, demonstrable, and repeatable. Evolution and the big bang fail in all of these miserably. Evolution is NOT science. It's a religion that willfully takes God away from the creation picture.

Now why do I say Soriano is an evolutionist? Because he will not accept that the earth is just about 6000 years old like the Bible shows us, and instead he would have people believe as he believes through the handiwork of evolutionists, that the earth is billions of years old. Soriano would deny the Bible's account of Jesus's genealogy which is clearly recorded from generation to generation, from father to son, and from Adam to Joseph (Jesus's adoptive father). Why? Because according to Soriano, not all 12 sons of Israel had their genealogies expressed in the Bible. He says Dan's lineage is missing so the Bible is incomplete, and without Dan's lineage, the Bible could not be a book of genealogy and could not be a good record of the age of the earth. So basing the age of the earth according to the genealogies in the Bible would be a "gross miscalculation".

This is a very poor defense for Soriano. One that any layman can take apart. In fact, I'm going to try and crack it wide open. Dan's genealogy is not in the Bible because it is not essential to trace the lineage of Jesus from Adam. Only the essential characters are mentioned even if only so briefly, to keep account of who begat who. Apart from a few notable women characters, the Bible often negates mentioning the mothers. Just the fathers who begat sons. The Bible is also keen in noting at what age fathers begat their sons. The Biblical record of genealogies is amazing. In fact if you chart out the lineage from Adam, you will find that Noah may have met grandpa Adam!

Soriano would then bring up diamonds as elements that need billions of years to be formed. This appears to be a major basis for him to deny a God that can create everything in six 24 hour days. It's not surprising given the fact that Soriano teaches that God is not omnipotent. Apparently, Soriano is not aware that man has been manufacturing diamonds for decades already. Real science has discovered that the right combination of heat and pressure will produce diamonds similar to how diamonds are formed naturally. This proves that it does not take millions or billions of years to form a diamond. Evolution along with Soriano is debunked by real science.

Soriano is subtly attacking the creation account of the Bible. Futile though, because the Bible is perfect, complete, and absolute. By perfect it means it is inerrant, by complete it means it is not missing anything, and by absolute, it means it is the final word on anything. Belief in evolution means you put death before sin, which is directly opposite to what scripture says. Evolution preaches that through death, everything has evolved into today's fittest creatures. The Bible tells us that through Adam, sin entered into the world and then death followed (Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;).

There is no evolution involved in creation. God would not need millions of years to create. God only needs to speak things into existence!

.

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.

Wow!

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.