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.

Eli Soriano And Satan Use The Same Words

In the Garden of Eden, man fell from grace and was separated from God after disobeying the only prohibition ever given in paradise. That he was not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He can eat of any tree except from this particular tree. We all know the story of how the serpent beguiled (tricked) Eve into eating the fruit from the said tree, and then made her husband Adam do the same.

It can be said that the fruit itself did not contain any knowledge, and that it was placed in the Garden to test man. Moreover, Adam came pre-programmed straight from the highest intelligence there is. There was nothing in the fruit that would have improved his already stellar intellect. I think Adam may have had an IQ of 1000 or more. Can you name anybody who can walk, talk, and get married all in one day? I'm just trying to paint a picture of Adam and Eve that will make you agree to the fact that they were perfect, they were in paradise, and they were with God.

What is it then that could have trumped their dreamy situation? How about, becoming like God themselves? That would have certainly had their minds picturing things far better than what they already possessed. Enter the serpent (Satan), the father of lies. He whispered THAT very notion into Eve's ear. First by making her doubt God "hath God said...?", then by denying God's very words. "ye shall not surely die", and the rest is Biblical history. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit because they listened to their desires of becoming like God. One bite, and they lost their innocence, they lost paradise, and most of all their communion with God. Sin entered into the world, and by sin came death (separation from God). Satan's words messed up everything for man.

Guess who is using the same words nowadays. Yes, Eli Soriano in his program, Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path). He's telling listeners the same thing Satan told Eve back in the Garden of Eden. "Ye shall be as gods". He cites verses from the Bible that in a very shallow way, supports his perverse doctrine. He argues that in John 10:34-35 where Jesus himself referred to men as "gods". We know that Jesus meant "men of higher stature" but for Eli Soriano, the word 'god' is 'God'. Then he'll point you to Webster's definition for confirmation of the word. A secular dictionary, imagine that! Doesn't Soriano have access to any concordance?Another passage he cites is Psalms 82:1, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." Here David refers to the same people Jesus meant. Men of high stature such as priests, prophets, kings, and rulers. But as with the first, 'god' is 'God' in Soriano's interpretation.

He further builds on these passages and even starts introducing himself as a god. Moreover, he goes on to convince his followers that they can attain godship themselves by citing yet another verse Ephesians 5:17 "Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is]", interpreting it as God wishes for them TO BECOME like God. This goes back to his principal doctrine that there are MANY gods, and NOT just one God. An example of which he says is Exodus 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh..." without taking into account that God was using an analogy of Himself and Moses, as Moses and Aaron.

How shallow can Soriano get? He actually doesn't need to go any deeper because he's catering to people who don't know better. People who cannot tell between right and wrong interpretations. People who are innocent. It's Adam and Eve all over again! I would give anything to have been in the Garden of Eden to stop the serpent from whispering in Eve's ear. I would have dashed in, took the serpent by the tail, spun all subtilness from his head, and flung him to a bunch of cacti. What's done is done and we can't do anything about it. But we can help prevent it from happening again. We can help save people from Hellfire by exposing Soriano's heresies. Let's not keep to ourselves and do nothing. By doing nothing, we are helping evil triumph. Let's shut this serpent up.