I visited an older (now closed) thread on Traducianism and thought I'd reinvigorate (or try to) the discussion.

One potentially interesting thought that comes to my mind is whether or not we can be said to exist prior to our own self-consciousness.

For example, take Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Can God know something that is not? It seems to me that our existence in the mind of God constitutes our identity, even prior to our own rational apprehension or realization of that identity. Indeed, our rational apprehension and realization is not yet complete, for in 1 John 3:2 we read - "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is," or in Jeremiah 17:9 we find that - "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"

Not only do we not fully know ourselves at present, but we do not fully know what we shall be tomorrow, or in the eternal age (although we have an incomplete understanding).

Given that identity depends upon knowledge and belief ("For as he thinks within himself, so he is."--Prov. 23:7), and knowledge is eternal (all knowledge comes from God's own mind) and it is in God we live and move and have our being and in whom we subsist--I would think that God's knowledge of us constitutes our existence and our identity prior to our own awareness.

Given this knowledge, I think we can argue that traducianism is not only more consistent with Scripture's statements regarding creation (that God ceased it on the end of the sixth day) as well as with regard to how our mind comes to be. God illumines the mind which subsists (coheres?) with the body that comes by natural generation.

A rejoinder is that our minds persist after our bodies have been destroyed in death. But if we conceive of our existence being primarily in the mind of God, our consciousness continues without a body because God has filled that consciousness with the very thoughts which are present to it. I'm not quite sure how it is that we have consciousness apart from the body, but as it is clear that we have existence apart from a body (in God's thought) it does not seem contradictory that we should have consciousness apart from the body as well--the metaphor of "filling" not being entirely accurate for explaining how an immaterial mind receives from God its thoughts and retains them.

I've only recently thought along these lines and I'm interested to have these thoughts sharpened if anyone is willing and able to bring some observation to bear upon them. Many thanks ahead of time to those who do.

__________________
Joshua Butcher
PCA
College Station, TX

Hi Joshua,

We'll probably want to take this off line rather soon and discuss two-way. Give me some grace here as I try to discern what you are trying to posit.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”

Yes, God knew and loved us in Christ prior to our existence.

“It seems to me that our existence in the mind of God constitutes our identity, even prior to our own rational apprehension or realization of that identity.”

Do our intentions under certain circumstances define our essential attributes, what I believe you are referring to as “our identity”? If so, then our essential attributes are at least in part a function of God’s will. In other words, would I be who I am if I did not intend to write this post at this time under these circumstances? Or, am I who I am regardless of whether God brought to pass this one intention? I don’t suspect the former but rather the latter. I suspect that God’s determination of how we behave is not essential to whom we are in our essential attributes. For instance, my response to the gospel when I did was not essential to my being me, lest had God so wanted he could not have allowed me to perish. Since he could have allowed me to perish (had he wanted), my choices are not essential to my essence. Accordingly, God’s determination is not the deciding factor of our essence. (His determination of course caused the instantiation of our essence.) Now if we are who we are not by determination, then our essence (not our choices but our essence) is no more determined than logic. This is not to say that our essence does not proceed from God; for indeed logic does (as well), yet it is not subject to determination anymore than our essence. The set of all essences is not a determination but a logical truth that must be rooted in God (somewhere being eternal).

Accordingly, for God’s knowledge to “constitute” our identity would seem misleading, if by “constitutes” you mean determines. Rather, I would prefer to say that God’s knowledge of our essence presupposes our essence is true. Prior to creation there was an essence that is now in the body in time. I would not say that your essence “depends upon” (i.e. logically follows from) God’s knowledge, as if his thinking of your essence somehow precedes your essence and in turn makes your essence true. Otherwise, he would have had to know something not yet true in order to make it true. Rather, knowledge, I would say, always presupposes a prior truth.

Your essence, whether he instantiated you or not, was always true, which is why he knew you. In the like manner, his knowledge of logic is necessarily true but his thinking logic does not precede logic, anymore than his thinking holy preceded holy. (That he knew you in Christ was based upon his eternal will, another matter altogether – yet notwithstanding, your essence is not predicated upon “in Christ”.)

God’s knowledge of creaturely choices, of course, follows from his determination, but his knowledge of possible essences, like logic, is not a dependent upon his will but rather his very nature. The set of all essences, which he knows, I would assert is grounded in and proceeds from his attribute of logical possibility, which he knows. In sum, I would say God’s knowledge of himself and what is possible logically follows from the truth about himself, as opposed to the truth about himself following from his thinking or knowledge. Again, what is there to know but truth, which implies that truth is logically prior to knowledge in all cases; whether the truth is determined or whether it’s an eternal attribute or proceeds from an attribute doesn’t really matter.

“Not only do we not fully know ourselves at present, but we do not fully know what we shall be tomorrow, or in the eternal age (although we have an incomplete understanding).”

Indeed.

“I'm not quite sure how it is that we have consciousness apart from the body”

Why not? The conscience is immaterial and the body isn’t?

Blessings,

Ron

__________________
Ronald W. DiGiacomo / Ruling Elder
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com

Hi Ron, thanks for responding. I'll do my best to stay sharp.

I never mentioned "intentions" or "choices" in my original post, but rather, beliefs. Obviously there is a sense in which a belief can be an intention or a choice, but I'm thinking strictly in terms of our mental assent, and not particularly a motive or action.

"For as he thinks within himself, so he is."--Prov. 23:7

What we believe about ourselves, it seems from this verse, determines (at least proximately) who we are. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) our essence or being to be the product of two things: God's thought and our beliefs. But we could simply it and simply say that we what God thinks us to be.

You seem to disagree with this conclusion on a different basis.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you define our essence as a truth that God knows and instantiates by His determination.

But, I am not entirely clear on how you are distinguishing the terms "truth," "knowledge," and "determination" with respect to God.

I'm also confused about your analogy between our essence and logic, as I see these things two things falling into distinctive categories. Logic is an attribute of God, but our essence is not. God's possession and application of logic is different from God's possession of and application of our essence--for though in Him we live and breath and have our being, our being is not essential to God as is logic.

Which brings me to another confusion I have with your post. You say:

I guess the key question is how essence is to be distinguished from existence with regard to human beings? Instantiation, I take it, is how we come to exist, and God instantiates on the basis of our essence, which is a truth in His mind. What is the difference between the truth that refers to me and my being this what this truth reveals?

Finally, I'm way out of my league when it comes to logical possibilities. That God could not want something seems to imply something other than the God that is, for is not God's being bound up in His desire, or better, His self-determination? To want something other than what God does in fact want seems to imply a different God.

Oh yeah, and when I said that I'm not quite sure how it is that we have consciousness apart from the body I wasn't expressing doubt about the fact of our out-of-body consciousness, but rather doubt about the means by which or manner in which such out-of-body consciousness is accomplished. The mind-body distinction seems perilously confusing, and yet we know that the mind does persist apart from the body.

Thanks for the thoughts and I hope you'll have some more for me,
~Joshua

Hi Josh,

I wrote: “my choices are not essential to my essence.” To which you responded, “I never mentioned ‘intentions’ or ‘choices” in my original post, but rather beliefs.” Obviously you did not mention choices or intentions, but there must have been a reason for my stating the premise that my choices are not essential to essence. I needed to establish that choices, which are determined by God according to his will, are not essential to the essence of man in order to establish that our essence is not a determinative act of God. If our essence was in any sense determined by God’s choice, then his knowledge of our essence would be akin to “free knowledge” (or even “middle-knowledge in the hands of a Calvinist philosopher” to borrow from Dabney), as opposed to “necessary knowledge”.

“Obviously there is a sense in which a belief can be an intention or a choice, but I'm thinking strictly in terms of our mental assent, and not particularly a motive or action.”

Beliefs are never intentions or choices. Beliefs need not end with intentions and intentions need not end in choices. We intend and choose according to beliefs but that is another matter.

"But, I am not entirely clear on how you are distinguishing the terms 'truth,' 'knowledge,' and "determination" with respect to God."

Hmmm, it’s hard for me to grasp that you don’t see a clear distinction. You have my number….

Best,

Ron