So what is it about me or my theological position that you have this burning desire to convince me of your doctrine?
I invited general discussion upon an idea. Period. You stated the idea clearly so I gave you mention as an introduction, my springboard, if you will. If you are too egocentric to resist thinking it was all about you then I'm sorry, I won't do it again.
If you don't care what I think; than why invite me to this thread?
I did invite your ideas but you derailed it into this...whatever it is.
I have studied PCE theology since the mid 70s so I know the opposition very well and that it may is based upon 4000 years of misinterpretation. So when all someone offers is a list of scriptures they throw at me like stones, it wastes my time. When they ignore my pov and try to rampage over me without discussion of my pov but only by repeated assertions about how wrong I must be, it wastes my time.
I cut my teeth on James Oliver Buswell's
Systematic Theology apologetic for Calvinism and though he rejected pce, he at least discussed it sensibly and he actually gave me my intro into the ideas when I saw what I believed to be unsettling weakness in his arguments.
Since I am not in charge of who accepts or rejects my pov, that is another Person's job, I have no vested interest in any one particular person's response except in how it advances my own understanding. Dogmatic reiterations of what I have come to believe are blasphemies does me no good, though questions about how orthodox interpretations of doctrines can be blasphemous are invited as they have been instrumental in forcing me to dig deeper.
My apology, in the theological sense, for the last 40 yrs or so, has been:
I present the verses I do which witness to our pre-conception existence, along with some others which I feel make a lot more sense when they are interpreted in light of this doctrine.
Now, being that hardly anyone has searched the Scriptures in light of the pre-conception view, these Scriptures have rarely been interpreted this way before in any commentary or discussion. Therefore, it stands to reason that such
an exegesis of these Scriptures will be new and that it will be fairly unique, that is,
that almost all the other interpretations of the same Scriptures will be different.
In other words, any verse that conveys the idea of pre-existence has rarely been interpreted this way before because almost every exegete automatically looks for a different interpretation when they read such an interpretation. This being the case, a mere list of Scriptures will not constitute proof of scriptural support for this doctrine but, to provide such proof, such a list will have to be accompanied by an in-depth exegesis of the said Scriptures.
Providing only a list of pertinent verses without the accompanying new exegesis would only tend to prove to its searchers that this doctrine had no scriptural support, simply because they would tend to interpret the Scriptures that supply proof of our pre-conception existence only in orthodox terms, in much the same way that everybody used to interpret the Scriptures regarding the Christ King.
