For Further Reading: Kane

The mission of Christ is found in the pro-tevangelium (Gen. 3:15), the Messianic proph­ecies of the OT, and in the numerous names, titles, and attributes ascribed to Him (Zech. 3:8; Isa. 7:14; 9:6; Hag. 2:7; Num. 24:17). The three major aspects of His office and work are prophet (Deut. 18:18; Isa. 61:1-3), priest (Ps. 110:4; Zech. 6:13), and king (Ps. 2:7; Isa. 11:1-5). Closely re­lated to His priestly mission is the OT picture of the Suffering Servant, with the two strange para­doxes: king/suffering servant, priest/sacrificial lamb (Acts 8:32-35; Heb. 9:11-12).

In the NT, from the "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" of childhood (Luke 2:49) to the "It is finished" of the Cross (John 19:30) and the promise "I will come again" (14:3), Christ's own sense of mission sounded so clearly that it still rings out to us. In the synagogue at Nazareth, He said, "This day is this scripture ful­filled in your ears" (Luke 4:16-21). He affirmed both His purpose and authority in delivering His people from their sins (Mark 2:17; Matt. 9:13; Luke 5:32; Matt. 18:11; Luke 19:10; Mark 2:9; Luke 7:48). He clearly related His saving from sin to His future atoning death (Mark 10:45; Matt. 26:28; John 10:11-18; Acts 5:31).

The glorious redemptive purpose and work of Jesus in saving "his people from their sins" was to the end of bringing them to eternal life in the unending kingdom of God. "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world," He said to Pilate (John 18:37). The glorious pur­pose of a holy, loving God, before time began, is to be brought to fulfilment in His resurrection from the dead, in the coming of the Holy Spirit, in the love and labors of the Spirit-filled Church, in His return to earth, and in the glorious con­summation of all things. And then "every knee [shall] bow ... and ... every tongue [shall] con­fess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:11).

The mission of Christ can never be fully un­derstood without an appreciation of the nature



342

MISTAKES—MODERN REALISM


of His personhood: very God of very God, very man of very man, the God-man.

See christ, estates of christ, redeemer (redemp­tion), mission (missions, missiology), holiness.

Mistakes are not sins, "properly so-called" (Wesley). Since a mistake is unintentional, it lacks the element of moral blameworthiness which is essential to sin. A mistake may be the result of ignorance, inexperience, or immaturity —handicaps which are not sinful in themselves. Also, mistakes are consistent with the doctrine of perfect love. Because a mistake is unintentional, the motivation behind a mistake may be com­patible with love from a pure heart. The mo­tivation of love could hardly be classified as sin.

While mistakes are not sin as properly defined, mistakes may indeed be unintentional violations of law, and hence require both correction and covering. Through Christ God overlooks our mistakes, just as He always is ready to forgive sin when confessed.

In a sermon on Christian perfection John Wes­ley concluded, "No one, then, is so perfect in this life, as to be free from ignorance. Nor, secondly, from mistakes" (Works, 6:3). Wiley concurs: "The depravity of his spiritual nature may be removed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, but the in­firmities of flesh will be removed only in the res­urrection and glorification of the body" (CT, 2:140).

See sin. failure, infirmities.

For Further Reading: Wesley, Plain Account of Chris­tian Perfection; Wiley, CT, 2:140, 506-9.

James L. Porter

MODALISM. See sabellianism.

MODERATION. See temperance.

MODERN REALISM. This is directly opposed to idealism (the modern philosophical term for the older realism). Modern realism's main contention is in opposition to any theory that would reduce the phenomenal world to a system of ideas. It shifts from ontology to epistemology. Its concern is with man's perception of individuals and partic­ulars as he experiences his world of material things. It is a reaction from the belief that the ultimate "stuff" of our universe is essentially of the nature of mind (spirit) and is basically spiri­tual and dynamic. It contends (1) that not all en­tities are mental, conscious, or spiritual; and (2) that entities are knowable without being known. It is the epistemological position which asserts that the object of knowledge is distinct from and independent of the act of awareness. It contends that the object of awareness, when we are aware of it, is precisely what it would be if we were not aware of it.

Of course man, as a creature of time and space physically, develops a kind of naive realism (sometimes called common sense realism) which says that things are just as they are given in con­sciousness through immediate perception. But this makes no allowance for error in perception or hallucinations in perceiving things not actu­ally present in sense but only in imagination.

Two schools of realism arrived on the scene of American philosophy in the early 20th century. The first was known as neorealism. It was some­times called "presentational realism." It sub­scribed to epistemological monism and made no clear distinctions between seeming and being, in­sisting that things are just what they seem.

The second was known as critical realism and was referred to as "representative realism." It was epistemologically dualistic and made a dis­tinction between the sense data directly present to the mind and the real external object. Thus ideas are representative of the external objects. For this sort of realism perception had two as­pects: (1) the sensory and ideational content, and (2) the meaning and outer reference. Knowledge is the insight into the nature of the object that is made possible by the contents which reflect it in consciousness. Thus mental states exist as much as do physical objects. Such realism had prefer­ence for the correspondence theory of truth, and our ideas, if valid, must conform to the exis­tential realm of physical nature. Yet there is the possibility of error and things may not be just what they seem.

Both types of American realism were inclined toward evolutionary naturalism, holding that the physical is but another term for being and exis­tence. Thus most modern realists are evo­lutionary humanists. Mind therefore becomes only a tool of the organism and not the instru­ment of an ontological self.

Thus in their concern for epistemology they have not been able to escape ontology and the taking of some kind of a metaphysical stance.

See realism, Scottish realism, realism and nominalism, realism in theology

For Further Reading: Perry, Philosophy of the Recent



P
MODERNISM—MONASTICISM
ast, 197-220; Present Philosophical Tendencies, 271-347; Stace, "The Refutation of Realism," Mind, 53

(1934). Ross E. Price
MODERNISM. See liberalism.

MONARCHIANISM. This refers to certain unitar­ian views of God, originating in the second and third centuries a.d., according to which God is thought of as unified, as a monarch is. The tru­est, clearest form of Monarchianism was that of Modalism, the view that there is but one God, and that He has manifested himself successively in three modes: as Father, then as Son, then as the Holy Spirit.

See sabellianism. J. kenneth grider

In this situation a young Christian orphan named Antony (c. a.d. 250-355—he lived to the age of 105!) heard the words of Jesus, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matt. 19:21); and, desiring no less than Christian perfection, he resolved to 343

obey the instruction to the letter. He disposed of all his possessions and distributed them to the poor before withdrawing to the desert to com­mune with God in solitude. Antony's fame as a man of God spread, and so many there were who would be his disciples and follow his exam­ple, that he emerged from solitude in a.d. 305 to organize a community of hermits. Monasticism was born.

Types of Monasticism. The motivating force was the desire for personal sanctification through the renunciation of the world. This renunciation ex­pressed itself in a variety of ways. The commu­nity of Antony was of the so-called anchorite type; that is to say, they lived individually as her­mits or, if they lived in community, they prac­ticed absolute silence. This type of discipline is practiced today in the Carthusian Order.

Contemporary with Antony was Pachomius, who also formed a monastic order. Here, how­ever, normal community life was practiced. This is known as coenobite, or fellowship monasticism.

In the Middle Ages monastic life in the West was largely dominated by the Mendicant Friars who, unlike other monks, were forbidden to own any property either personally or in common, and lived either by working or begging. Also un­like other orders, the mendicants were not re­stricted to one monastery, but travelled around from town to town.

Monasticism was spread in the East by Basil the Great, and in the West by John Cassian.

The weaknesses of the monastic movement were that, in the first place, it presented the Christian ideal as something impossible for ev­eryday life and therefore attainable only by those who withdrew from the world. A double stan­dard of Christianity was thereby introduced which divorced the demands of God from nor­mal living. The second weakness of the move­ment was that in its ideal it was intensely individualistic. Frequently in the history of mo­nasticism, warnings had to be given regarding the monastic rejection of the church and the sac­raments. The monk was so concerned with his

own salvation that community life was a matter of little importance to him. The monk proposed to himself no great or systematic work beyond that of saving his own soul. What he did more than this was the accident of the hour.

See CHRISTLIKENESS, SANCTIFICATION, CHURCH, KOI­NONIA.

For Further Reading: Workman, The Evolution of the
Monastic Ideal; Chadwick, John Cassian (2d ed., 1968);
Kirk, The Vision of God. THOMAS FlNDLAY

MONERGISM. This is the view that salvation is solely and independently the work of God. Thus it is contrasted with synergism, which leaves some room for human action in the total saving or redeeming process. Monergism was expressed very forcefully by Augustine in his debate with Pelagius. Since then it has been embraced by schools of both Catholics (e.g., Jansenists) and Protestants (e.g., Calvinists). Its best exponents have been in the Reformed tradition. Both Luther and Calvin embraced monergism enthusi­astically; the followers of Calvin have preserved it to the present; much contemporary theology has ignored or discarded the concept entirely. Wesley is generally recognized as opposed to monergism, but his position is extremely subtle in that his doctrine of prevenient grace at­tempted to preserve the stress on divine action in regeneration. It enabled him to assert that any human action related to regeneration was only possible because of prior divine action.

The support for monergism has been man­ifold. Proponents insist that it alone does justice to the following considerations. It exalts God by giving Him all the glory for man's salvation. It fully preserves justification by faith by ruling out any human cooperation or contribution to regen­eration. It takes very seriously the radical cor­ruption of human nature by stressing the complete inability of man to save himself. It makes sense of the experience of salvation by il­luminating the resistance of the human will when confronted with the claims of the gospel. It preserves the biblical emphasis on divine ini­tiative and constant divine action in salvation.

Monergism cannot be divorced from the wider set of doctrines in which it is embedded. Thus it finds its natural home in the classical Calvinistic scheme that begins with total depravity, and moves through unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace to the persever­ance of the saints. All of these doctrines develop the implications of monergism by specifying the divine activity that alone results in any individ­ual's salvation.

Two other themes that naturally deserve ex­tended consideration in order to accommodate fully the implications of monergism are the na­ture of human freedom and the relation between divine action and human action. Of the two the first has received most attention. In this case ei­ther free will is rejected entirely (Luther), or it is so interpreted as to be compatible with complete divine determinism (Edwards). Recent work by Lucas has shed light on the relation between di­vine and human action in salvation.

As noted above, Wesleyan Arminianism is monergistic to the degree that all saving grace is acknowledged as coming from God, and that even man's free cooperation is made possible by prevenient grace. But Wesleyans object to radical monergism on the grounds that pure deter­minism makes God equally responsible (by de­fault) for the damnation of those He chooses not to save; it reduces freedom to puppetry and holi­ness to a legal fiction; and it runs counter to the total tenor of Scripture, which assumes a real ca­pacity in man either to cooperate with God or resist Him.

See SYNERGISM, FREEDOM, PELAGIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM. DETERMINISM, CONTINGENT.

For Further Reading: Luther, The Bondage of the Will; Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 3, chaps. 21—24; Lucas, Freedom and Grace.

William J. Abraham

MONEY. The Bible attaches great significance to money and its use. It is not only a form of wealth and a medium of exchange, but its use is an in­dex to the character of those who possess it.

The sinful heart is prone to love money, first for what it can buy or do, but soon for its own sake. Such love is a root of all sorts of evil (1 Tim. 6:10, nasb). For the love of money is a form of covetousness, which, as Paul says, is idolatry (Col. 3:5). Its possession is seen by the carnal mind as the key to power, prestige, position, and pleasure—the four p's of the world's value sys­tem. When one is in the grip of this love, all more worthy loves are either tarnished by it or with­ered completely. Blinded by this unholy obses­sion, men and women have sacrificed family, friends, and health, to say nothing of honor and integrity. This lust is often the driving force be­hind prostitution, crime, and violence, on the dark side of society; but also injustice and op­pression in business and industry.

Because of these evils spawned by an inor­dinate craving for money, the Bible is full of warnings. For one thing, money will not satisfy; its promise of happiness is an illusion (Eccles.



MONISM

345

5:10). Equally delusive is its promise of security (Matt. 6:19-20). Its possession, moreover, is a constant peril to the soul (13:22; 19:21-23). It is no wonder that the Word says: "Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction" (1 Tim. 6:9,

NASB).

How can Christians avoid the pitfalls of han­dling money? Fundamentally, of course, their love of money must be thoroughly broken and displaced by an all-consuming love for Jesus Christ. This means that not only the interests and goals of a new kind of life must captivate them, but they must experience total deliverance from the old bondage, so that they are no longer touchy about "money talk," but free to enjoy the delights and blessings of the cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9:6-7). This requires nothing less than total sanctification of the inner affections. A revised and Christianized value system will follow natu­rally (cf. Phil. 4:10-14; 1 Tim. 6:6-8).

There are two evidences of such inner sanctifi­cation. One is the capacity to be happy without a lot of money. The other is the actual cheerful demonstration of day-by-day stewardship with what we have. For we will now see money from a new perspective, not as a means of gratifying self or as something to hoard, but as a means of serving God and doing good (Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:7-12).

Energetic and able people especially need to watch the single-mindedness of their devotion, and guard against the peril of the subtle allure of affluence. For in the nature of the case, industri­ous and capable people are apt to become more or less prosperous. Such prosperity is not sinful but dangerous, as many have found to their sor­row. Only great devotion and discipline will avoid the creeping incubus of returning materi­alism, and enable Christians to own money with­out being owned by it (1 Tim. 6:17-19; Heb. 13:5).

In OT times, material wealth was seen as a sign of divine blessing. Often it really was (Abra­ham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, etc.). But not always did this sign hold (Heb. 11:36-39).

In the NT one test of spiritual depth is seen as the willingness to divest oneself of wealth for the Kingdom's sake, if called upon to do so; or if not so required, at least to use one's wealth for the Kingdom. Money and things became the hinge of discipleship for the 12 disciples themselves, for the rich young ruler, Zacchaeus, Barnabas, Ananias, and Sapphira.

Jesus measured generosity not so much in terms of the amount given but by the amount left (Mark 12:42-44). He further laid down the prin­ciple that one's faithfulness in handling money would be the yardstick by which his trust­worthiness in more important matters could be gauged (Luke 16:10-12). He urged such an in­vestment of one's means in the Kingdom that they would when he died be to his eternal credit instead of to his eternal condemnation (v. 9). Yet one's stewardship is not to be showy and osten­tatious, but quiet and modest (Matt. 6:2-4).

The legitimacy of money was never denied by Jesus, but dependence on it was. When the disci­ples were first sent out, they were to take no money with them, but trust themselves to the hospitality of the people (Mark 6:8). Yet else­where He concedes the inescapability of the ma­terial aspect of life, in the words "Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things," and, "But seek first His kingdom ... and all these things shall be added to you" (Matt. 6:32-33,

NASB).

John Wesley advised his Methodists to make all they could, save all they could, and give all they could. The advice is still timely.

See STEWARDSHIP, CONSECRATE (CONSECRATION), COVETOUSNESS, MATERIALISM.

For Further Reading: Timothy L. Smith, ed., The Promise of the Spirit (Charles G. Finney on Christian Holiness), 94-105, 231-39. RICHARD S. TAYLOR

MONISM. Monism, a word derived from the Greek monos and coined by Christian von Wolff (a.d. 1679-1754), a German philosopher, is a world view or metaphysical system which em­phasizes one ultimate form or substance of real­ity. This means either that reality is unchanging, i.e., permanent or motionless, or that reality can­not be differentiated into pieces or parts. Monism is thus to be contrasted with dualism, which holds that there are two basic powers or elements in the ultimately real, and with pluralism, which accepts common-sense experience, the dynamic and changing, and the need for free play as re­quiring a world of many initiating centers.

Monism emphasizes the need for a single ex­planatory principle to adequately satisfy rational demands; it may regard the real as the perma­nent and find change as illusory; it may give great consideration to the area of moral require­ments in which standards must be established. Finally monism may develop the preceding into a concept of God with characteristics of per­fection, absoluteness, and changelessness.

Absolute monism must be distinguished from ultimate monism in that in absolute monism ev­



3
MONOPHYSITISM—MONOTHELITISM

46

ery piece within reality is so dependent upon the single will/energy/power that it has little or no sense of difference from it. In ultimate monism all things could derive from the one origin and be significantly dependent upon it, and yet have some degree of significant independence of it.

One of the key and crucial problems in mo­nism is the presence of evil. Can evil really ap­pear in such a closed system? Why, if it does not, do we seem to have so much evil?

See immutability, cosmology, metaphysics, per-sonalism, evil, dualism.

Directory: sites -> default -> files -> publications
publications -> Table of Content forward introduction
publications -> Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies Georgia Institute of Technology
publications -> Housing Counseling Research in Chicago
publications -> Communicating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Audiences
publications -> New Brunswick Info Sheet on First Nations Child Welfare
publications -> Paap’s Electronic Newsletter 14 November 2008 Volume 11 Number 22 towards ‘smart’ subsidies in agriculture: lessons from recent experience in malawi
publications -> Information support of pedagogical process for the children experiencing difficulties with acquisition of preschool educational programs
publications -> Asus’ ZenFone ar has Google’s augmentted and virtual reality baked in — but not combined
publications -> School Readiness and Early Grade Success Consultation Memo Atlanta, ga

Download 6.66 Mb.

Share with your friends: