Religious Fundamentalism-A Biblical-Theological Response

Religious Fundamentalism-A Biblical-Theological Response

H. Joseph Lalfakmawia

I. Introduction

Religious fundamentalism is found in all religions and becomes a worldwide issue today. Although there are changes and improvements in its nature, yet the movement is still going on in various ways. They are quite exclusive not only to other religions, but also to other ideologies apart from the essence of faith they profess within the same community of faith/religion. This is true in all religions. Meanwhile, this paper will narrow down fundamentalism into Christian fundamentalism and the biblical-theological response on it. Even though several weaknesses of it can be taken out, but our main focus here is on its exclusiveness, inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, substitutionary atonement and critical approaches to the Bible. As the topic demands, our approach is only from biblical and theological circles.

II. An Overview of Religious Fundamentalism

The characteristics of fundamentalism which I’m dealing with in this paper are not exactly same with those of the early stage of protestant fundamentalism. Therefore, the so-called fundamentalists today are also differed because their outlook is much “broader, more sophisticated and more learned, less crude and combative than that of the writers of The Fundamentals and their immediate successors.”[1] So, their basic tenets are also slightly different from the former ones.

In a simple way, Gnana Robinson defines fundamentalism as “the adherence to Fundamentals” or in Christian context, it is “the maintenance of traditional orthodox beliefs.”[2] Religious fundamentalism originally means emphasis of the fundamentals of religious faith. However, in due course it has become fanatic and disruptive, basing on one-sided interpretation of truth. In order to preserve the purity of faith, it over emphasizes certain fundamentals out of context at the expense of others.[3]

The most well-defined characteristics of fundamentalism are:

1. 1) A very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from it of any error.[4]
2. 2) A strong hostility to modern critical study of the Bible.[5]
3. 3) Those who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really ‘true Christians.’[6]
4. 4) The interpretation of the original texts in the light of modern social conditions and the state of human knowledge as irreligious.[7]
5. 5) They consider secular culture as ‘base, barbarous, crude and profane.’[8]

From the light of the above study, I would like to define the term religious fundamentalism as ‘an intolerant chauvinism on fundamentals of religious principles/faith.’ In simple words, it is a chauvinism/narrow-mindedness on certain essences of faith that the adherents are intolerant to other faiths and the adherents. Every living human being has certain basic principle(s) as a guiding standard. This is true in every aspect of life be it social, political, cultural or religious sphere. People who hold such principles are not basically called fundamentalists as long as they tolerate others. However, they are automatically called fundamentalists when they become intolerant. This does not necessarily demand physical reaction, but any form of intolerance. Therefore, the orthodox and conservatives are not necessarily fundamentalists; rather the fundamentalists are fanatic in their ideology and the pursuit of it.

Narchison, therefore, claimed that even their emphasis on the Bible is but a camouflage or disguise. He said that when the fundamentalists claim to be guided by the Bible, in reality they are using the Bible to promote certain of their traditions. In its nature, the aggressive militancy was there in Christian fundamentalism.[9]

III. Biblical-Theological Response on religious fundamentalism

1. Exclusivism

The fundamentalists are so exclusive even within the Christian community that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really ‘true Christians.’ They talk about the picture of the ‘nominal’ and the ‘true’ Christian, and the difference between them is commonly set through the non-acceptance or acceptance of conservative evangelical doctrine.[10] They, more strictly, claim that the revelation in Jesus Christ is the sole criterion by which all religions can be understood and evaluated. Further, they hold that Christianity is the revealed religion apart from other religions.[11]

One popular fundamentalist scholar Hendrik Kraemer[12] emphasized that God has revealed the Way and the Truth and the Life in Jesus Christ, and wills this to be known throughout the world.[13] He exclusively claimed that Christianity is the religion of reconciliation and atonement.[14] Similarly, Karl Barth believed that there is no knowledge of God to be had apart from Christ.[15] He said that salvation and reconciliation is possible only in the Christendom and of Christians, of the community (church) of Jesus Christ and of its members (individual Christians in their personal relationship to Jesus Christ). There cannot be reconciliation outside this.[16]

Thus, we can quote Karl Rahner in opposition to these exclusivists. Rahner, although he sees Christianity as the absolute religion, founded on the unique event of the self-revelation of God in Christ, says that not merely individual non-Christians may be saved, but that the non-Christian religious traditions in general may have access to the saving grace of God in Christ. He continued that saving grace must be available outside the bounds of the church-and hence in other religious traditions, despite their shortcomings. Rahner professes that the faithful adherent of a non-Christian religious tradition is thus to be regarded as an “anonymous Christian.” He again added that other religious traditions will not be displaced by Christianity.[17]

Rahner is true that God is not limited to a particular community or chosen nation; but God is a universal God. Jesus also saw real faith among those who genuinely followed divine concern like the Samaritan traveler and affirmed that many will come from all four directions and share in the heavenly banquet. Knowing this biblical universalism and inclusivism, we need to develop an inclusive Christology and help people to identify God revealed in Jesus at work within other religions without claiming that the Gospel or the Bible is the sole source of inspiration.[18]

The fundamentalists are quite exclusive even within their context. In the meantime, the Bible, both the OT and the NT, contains several universal ideas that can clearly be seen from the life of the non-Israelites or the people of God. Among these are Ruth (Moabite-Ruth 1:4), Job, Nebuchadnezzar, Rahab the prostitute (Josh 2:1ff), Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:26) etc. They became God’s instruments and their deeds are known throughout the biblical history. So, God cannot be limited to the only God of Israelites nor Christians, but the God of all.

In reference to biblical thought, ‘universalism’ frequently denotes the view, common to OT and NT that the purposes of God are not limited to any one nation or race, but extend world-wide. ^[19] On this part, the fundamentalists’ claim of exclusiveness, be it within their community (Christianity) or outside Christianity, is against the teaching of the Bible as a whole.

2. Inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible

The most influential fundamentalist about inspiration of the Bible is B. B. Warfield (1851-1921). He cleverly claimed the absolute absence of error in the scriptures ‘as originally given.’[20] But in one way they are right to accept 2 Tim 3:16 that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for correction and for training in righteousness.” On the other way, the fundamentalists acknowledged only 39 books of the OT and the 27 books the NT as found in the protestant canon as canonical scripture, and reject the 7 books of the OT (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees) which the Catholics accepted as canonical even though a secondary order.[21]

The fundamentalists hold the theory of verbal inspiration of the Bible.[22] Verbal inspiration theory insists that the influence of the Holy Spirit extends beyond the direction of human thoughts to the selection of words used to convey the message. The work of the Holy Spirit is so intense that each word is the exact word which God wants to use at that point to express the message.[23] They refuse to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.[24]

In fact, it is known that both the Testaments view the words of Scripture as God’s own words.[25] In the meantime, we have to know that Bible is but a collection of books written by human beings through a long period of time. It is a mixture of different types of literary forms with various styles.

In discussing the Bible in its literary form, K. Bühler presumes three dialogal functions of language: [26]

1) To inform: the speaker states facts, ideas, doctrines;

2) To express: he reveals his/her inner life, feelings, experiences;

3) To impress: he/she acts upon the person he/she is speaking to.

These three functions are intermingled in practice, but it is useful to distinguish one from the other. These literary qualities are neither destroyed nor damaged by inspiration, we must consider the book in which it is found, the character and intention of the culture, the age he lived in, and the whole context of divine revelation.[27]

The counterpart of inerrancy, infallibility denotes the quality of never deceiving or misleading and so, means ‘wholly trustworthy and reliable.’ On the other hand, inerrant means ‘wholly true.’ It connotes the teaching and utterance of God ‘who cannot lie’ (Tit. 1:2).[28] However, the infallibility and inerrancy of biblical teaching does not guarantee the infallibility and inerrancy of any interpretation or interpreter, of that teaching. The Bible is not an inspired ‘Enquire Within Upon Everything.’ It does not profess to give information about all branches of human knowledge. In broadest sense, it claims to teach all things necessary to salvation (2 Tim 3:16); but it nowhere claims to give instruction in any of the natural sciences or in Greek and Hebrew grammar and it would be an improper on these matters.[29]

Although the fundamentalists do not particularize the theory of inerrancy they are holding either absolute inerrancy[30] or full inerrancy[31] or limited inerrancy,[32] yet we can well suppose that their argument should be either absolute or full inerrancy because they believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. In this way, the theory of absolute or full inerrancy can be invalidated as irrational so long as there are several discrepancies are found in terms of scientific, historical and data basis.[33]

In the meantime, it is hard to bypass Marrow’s view that none other, but the faith of the community that gives the writings the designation Scripture/Word of God. But to anyone who does not believe in their God such writings are but part of the literary productions of ages past and no more.[34] According to this view, no individual religion can claim their scripture as the sole authoritative, supreme to others and fully divine compare to other scriptures. This is, of course, true to certain extent because one’s scripture is not divine/authoritative for others but merely one part of literature. So, respect to others’ scriptures as authoritative and inspired or inerrant should be the intelligible response.

Packer asserted that the right path is to deal with the phenomena of Scripture on the assumption that, being God-given, it is faithful to physical, moral and spiritual fact.^[35]

3. Substitutionary atonement

The supporters of substitutionary atonement theory use Rom 3:23-26; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal 3:13; etc. for the scriptural foundation. The late efficient scholar, A. T. Robertson supported and affirmed the Greek preposition u`per (which he translated it as in behalf of) to mean a kind of substitution. According to this, some biblical verses that use the preposition u`per such as Rom 5:6-8; 8:32; Gal 2:20; Heb. 2:9 etc. support atonement as substitution.[36] Some people still use preposition avnti (which literally means instead of) for substitution connotation.[37]

In their understanding, substitutionary atonement means that on the cross Christ took our place and endured the divine judgment due to human beings for their sins. Sin was thus cancelled or wiped away. The emphasis is also sacrificial in character: the death of Christ was a sacrifice for the removal of sin. By the way, the fundamentalists do not concern so much to argue about theories or explanations of the atonement; but rather, they oppose any theologies in which the atonement itself seems less central. They bitterly oppose any tendency which would concentrate on the teaching of Jesus, as an ethical guidance to be followed, while depending less upon his death upon the cross. The teaching and the life of Jesus are subsidiary to his death and make sense only when seen as leading to it.[38]

Although the substitutionary theory of atonement is based on the biblical data, it is actually more of a theological question. It is an unending and unsettled debate.[39] Although we have no space to discuss in detail, there are also other theories of atonement such as moral influence theory,[40] ransom theory,[41] satisfaction theory[42] etc. that too have scriptural basis. So, it is not reasonable to stick sternly on one of the theories such as substitutionary atonement. Thus, some prominent scholars reject this theory. Among them, Vincent Taylor (1887–1968), for example, argues that Paul consistently does not use the substitutionary preposition avnti (‘instead of, in place of’) but rather the representative u`per (‘on behalf of, for the sake of’) in expounding the death of Jesus.<sup>[43]</sup> Note the translation and interpretation of the word u`per not to mean substitution because some other scholars use it to mean substitution.

According to C. H. Dodd, the object of atonement is human and his/her sin, not God and his wrath. The term i`lasth,rion in Rom 3:25[44] is, therefore, translated as ‘expiation,’[45] which is focusing upon sin and its consequences for human, because God alone can wipe out moral defilement, rather than ‘propitiation’[46] which has, as its focus, the fulfillment of the justice of God.[47]

James Barr sees God’s gift, which is grace, as a spectacular issue in this matter. Faith is the acceptance of God’s grace. When faith is born, when a person accepts Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Saviour, then God’s atoning love in Christ becomes effective for him/her and in him/her. He/she is justified, forgiven, adopted as a child of God.[48] In other words, grace and its response, faith is given great significance.

Our main focus here is neither simply detaching substitutionary atonement nor blindly supporting Vincent Taylor’s representative theory or Dodd’s expiation. However, although wrath may be the need for atonement, love is the ground of atonement. God takes the initiative not only in dealing with sin (in expiation) but in removing the personal opposition to our access into his righteous presence (propitiation). Love and wrath are not therefore contradictory in God.^[49] Besides, Jesus’ teaching, life and examples (1 Pet. 2:21) are also valid for the model of Christian life which the fundamentalists lower down.

4. Critical approaches to the Bible

Fundamentalists take the scripture literally and interpreted it according to their own understanding to suit the doctrines they preached. At the arrival of modernism when the society contradicted their ideology, they could not tolerate it and started movement to reclaim authority of the sacred tradition.[50] Fundamentalism demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical approach.[51] Actually it was threaten both by Darwin’s evolutionary theory and Herbert Spencer’s (1820–1903) biblical criticism.[52] The fundamentalists preferred literal understanding and interpretation of the words of the Bible.[53]

As a result of this, fundamentalists make no distinction between the fact and fiction, myth and miracle, narrative and fable etc. Everything written becomes a factual record.[54] They ignore every literary and linguistic device or figure of speech which in any way extends, diminishes, transfers the literal meaning as only human interpretation, demonic distortion, falsification and subjectivisation of objective truth.[55]

Roman Catholic overcame the crisis by means of excommunication; but for Protestants, which does not have such centralized authority except the Bible, interpretation of the Bible was and is still the problem.[56]

The fundamentalists overlook and underestimate various necessities to undergo critical biblical analysis. Several examples can be given for this argument. For the first instance, Synoptic problem[57] and certain overlapping accounts with great discrepancies[58] in both Testaments show that Bible needs critical studies. Since the scriptures are written in a human language, and they use various forms of human speech such as poetry, rhetoric, narration in fable or story form, parables, symbolic language etc. It should also be understood that the Bible did not just fall from heaven, all its varied books, at one and the same time. Being written at different times, in different places, by different people in different modes of speech, the messages and basic meanings can be different from each other. So, we need critical studies.

In this regard, we need to employ every necessary constructive criticism such as form criticism,[59] textual criticism,[60] redaction criticism,[61] sociological criticism[62] etc. We need form criticism because the Scripture contains different literary forms such as parable, myth, similitudes,[63] legends, songs, parallelism, allegory, miracles, and historical stories etc. that need different interpretations. We need textual criticism because 1) the originals, probably written on papyrus scrolls, have all perished; 2) for over 1400 years the NT was copied by hand and the copyists made every conceivable errors, as well as often intentionally altering (probably with the idea of ‘correcting’) the text; 3) there are now extant, in whole or in part, 5338 Greek manuscripts, as well as hundreds of copies of ancient translations, plus the evidence from the citations of the NT writings of the early church Fathers. Moreover, the most problematic/thought provoking is that no two manuscripts anywhere in existence are exactly alike.[64]

Furthermore, we still need redaction criticism because the Evangelists were not merely editors or collectors, “scissors-and-paste men” who simply glued together various Gospel traditions in order to produce “Jesus-material collections” or “gospel excerpts” as Dibelius asserted,[65] but they are theologians[66] who even did editing their materials.[67] Sociological criticism also enables us to understand the life setting of the social and cultural life setting of Israelites and the primitive Christian church, the context when and where the OT and the NT were written. This helps us to have a right view of truest messages of biblical accounts.

IV. Conclusion

Our response does not mean that fundamentalists are totally wrong. The idea of exclusivism is also seen in the Bible such as Mk. 7:24-30 (a Gentile, Syrophoenician woman); Mt 15:21-28; Mt. 10:5-6[68] etc. However, a careful study reveals the Bible is very much inclusive (Ruth 1:4; Josh 2:1ff; Mk. 16:16; Act 15:17; Rom 1:16; Nebuchadnezzar as God’s instrument and so on). Their understanding of the scripture as verbally inspired and inerrant that modern critical study on it is opposed, should also not be blindly condemned because canonical book 2 Tim 3:16 said that all scripture is inspired by God. However, though Bible is inspired by God, God used frail human beings to convey the Word of God without abolishing the weakness of human nature. So, critical studies, as mentioned above reveal that there are a number of discrepancies and contradictions in the biblical wordings and narratives. It is true that even the Bible is not without any kind of error. The presence of plenty of manuscripts, in which not even any two of them are exactly alike, automatically tells us to employ every necessary critical study as long as we want to know the truest biblical text. But this does not diminish the value of the Bible. In fact, it is a quest for the truest text of the Bible. Our duty, here, is to make the fundamentalists aware of this.

Bibliography

Books

Alonso-Schökel, Luis. “Inspiration.” Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology. Edited by Karl Rahner, et al. Vol. 3. Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1975, 145-151.

Barr, James. Escaping from Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1984.

______________ Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1977.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. II. Part 1. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957.

_____________ Church Dogmatics. Vol. IV. Part 1. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, [1956], 1961.

Blomberg, C. L. “Form Criticism.” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Green, Joel G., Scot McKnight and Howard I. Marshall. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 243-250.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972.

Chandra, Bipin. Communalism: A Primer. New Delhi: Anamika Publishers & Distributors Ltd., 2004.

Cherian, M. T. Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response. Bangalore: Centre for Contemporary Christianity, 2007.

Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. New York: Scribner’s, n.d.

Dodd, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1932], 1937.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: baker Book House, [1983], 1985.

Fee, Gordon D. “Textual Criticism of the New Testament.” In Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Gast, Frederick. “Synoptic Problem.” The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Brown, Raymond E, et al. Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1968.

Kraemer, Hendrik. The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World. London: Edinburgh House Press, [1938], 1947.

Lawrence, Chellaian. “Religious and Political Fundamentalism: A Christian Response.” Religious Fundamentalism and Its Challenges to Doing Theology in Asia Regional Theological Consultation Organized Annually By the Programme for Theology & Cultures in Asia (PTCA), Tainan, Taiwan, 2004, 79-95.

Marrow, Stanley B. The Words of Jesus in Our Gospels: A Catholic Response to Fundamentalism. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, [1994], 1997.

Morrow, T. W. J. “Substitution and Representation.” New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Ferguson, Sinclair B and David F. Wright. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, [1988], 2003, 666-667.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Narchison, J. Rosario. “Christian Fundamentalism: Its Lesson for India.” In Shabda Shakti Sangam. Edited by Vandana Mataji. Rishikesh, U.P.: Vandana Mataji, 1995.

Packer, J. I. ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1985.

______________ “Scripture.” New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Ferguson, Sinclair B and David F. Wright. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, [1988], 2003, 627-631.

Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? London: SPCK, 1970.

Robertson, A. T. A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament. London: SPCK, 1931.

Robinson, Gnana. “Why is Fundamentalism a Problem Today.” Fundamentalism and Secularism: The Indian Predicament. Edited by Andreas Nehring. Madras: Gurukul Lutheran Theological College & Research Institute, 1994.

Snodgrass, K. R. “Parable.” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Green, Joel G., Scot McKnight and Howard I. Marshall. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 591-601.

Stein, Robert H. “Redaction Criticism.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by Freedman, David Noel. Vol. 5, 647-650.

______________ The Synoptic Problem” An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, [1987], 1994.

Trompf, Garry W. “Spencer, Herbert.” Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Eliade, Mircea. Vol. 14. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1987, 4-5.

Wright, N. T. “Universalism.” New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Ferguson, Sinclair B and David F. Wright. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, [1988], 2003, 701-703.

Journals

Carr, Dhyan Chand. “Fundamentalism & Communalism-A Biblical/Theological Perspective.” The National Council of Churches Review, 121 (2001) 07: 571-576.

Narchison, Rosario. “Towards a Definition of ‘Fundamentalism’.” Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 55 (1991) 05:255-264.

Raja, R. J. “Biblical Fundamentalism: An Enquiry.” Indian Theological Studies, 34(1997) 01:124-137.

---

[1] James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1977), 2.

[2] Gnana Robinson, “Why is Fundamentalism a Problem Today,” Fundamentalism and Secularism: The Indian Predicament, edited by Andreas Nehring (Madras: Gurukul Lutheran Theological College & Research Institute, 1994), 9. Jeffrey and Shuppe define it as, “A proclamation of reclaimed authority over a sacred tradition which is to be reinstated as an antidote for a society that has strayed from its cultural moorings.” Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shuppe, eds., Secularization and Fundamentalism Reconsidered, vol. III (New York: Paragon House, 1989), 111, quoted in Rosario Narchison, “Towards a Definition of ‘Fundamentalism’,” Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection, 55 (1991) 05:257.

[3] Chellaian Lawrence, “Religious and Political Fundamentalism: A Christian Response,” Religious Fundamentalism and Its Challenges to Doing Theology in Asia Regional Theological Consultation Organized Annually By the Programme for Theology & Cultures in Asia (PTCA), Tainan, Taiwan, 2004, 80.

[4] Barr, Fundamentalism, 1.

[5] Barr, Fundamentalism, 1.

[6] Barr, Fundamentalism, 1.

[7] Bipin Chandra, Communalism: A Primer (New Delhi: Anamika Publishers & Distributors Ltd., 2004), 81.

[8] M. T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response (Bangalore: Centre for Contemporary Christianity, 2007), 26f.

[9] Rosario Narchison, “Towards a Definition of ‘Fundamentalism’... op. cit., 260.

[10] Barr, Fundamentalism, 1, 14.

[11] Barr, Fundamentalism, 166.

[12] Though one may not call Hendrik Kraemer (1888-1965) as fundamentalist yet his theology compels us to call him a fundamentalist.

[13] Hendrik Kraemer, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (London: Edinburgh House Press, [1938], 1947), 107.

[14] Kraemer, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, 75.

[15] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. II, part 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957), 252.

[16] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. IV, part 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, [1956], 1961), 149.

[17] Karl Rahner, Theological Investigation, vol. 5, cited in Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, [1994], 1997), 534f.

[18] Dhyan Chand Carr, “Fundamentalism & Communalism-A Biblical/Theological Perspective,” The National Council of Churches Review, 121 (2001) 07: 574f.

^[19] N. T. Wright, “Universalism,” New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, [1988], 2003), 702.

[20] James Barr, Escaping from Fundamentalism (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1984), 141. Warfield meant that the original copies, as written by Moses, Isaiah or St. Paul or whoever it was, were without error, but this perfection did not extend over the later transmission: there may have been errors in the later copying process of manuscripts or in the translations into other languages. James Barr argued against this that it is practically impossible, artificial and unreal because the original copies do not exist and will never be recovered. So, he does not see the necessity of a perfectly inspired Bible if no one knows exactly what is in it.

[21] R. J. Raja, “Biblical Fundamentalism: An Enquiry,” Indian Theological Studies, 34(1997) 01:127f.

[22] Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights, 18.

[23] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: baker Book House, [1983], 1985), 207.

[24] Raja, Indian Theological Studies, 34(1997), 131.

[25] OT passages treat Moses’ law as God’s utterance (1 Ki. 22:8–16; Ne. 8; Ps. 119; etc.). NT writers view the OT as a whole as ‘oracles of God’ (Rom. 3:2), prophetic in character (16:26; cf. 1:2; 3:21), written by men whom the Spirit moved and taught (2 Pet. 1:20–21; cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–12). Christ and the NT constantly quote OT texts not merely as recording what men such as Moses, David or Isaiah said through the Spirit (Mk. 7:6–13; 12:36; Rom. 10:5, 20; 11:9), but also as recording what God has said through men (Mt. 19:4–5; Acts 4:25; 28:25; 1 Cor. 6:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 1:5–13; 8:5; 8), or what the Holy Spirit says (Heb. 3:7; 10:15).

[26] Luis Alonso-Schökel, “Inspiration,” Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, edited by Karl Rahner, et al., vol. 3 (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1975), 148.

[27] Luis Alonso-Schökel, “Inspiration,” Sacramentum Mundi, vol. 3, 150.

[28] J. I. Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1985), 95.

[29] Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God, 96.

[30] Absolute inerrancy means the Bible, which includes rather detailed treatment of matters both scientific and historical is fully true. Cf. Erickson, Christian Theology, 222.

[31] It says that the Bible, including all data etc. is fully true. Erickson, Christian Theology, 222.

[32] This is different from the former ones. It says the Bible is inerrant and infallible in its salvific doctrinal reference. The Bible writers were subject to the limitation of their time. Bible may contain what we would term errors in those areas. Cf. Erickson, Christian Theology, 222f.

[33] For instance, molten sea in 2 Chr. 4:2 indicates that its diameter was 10 cubits while its circumference was 30 cubits. However, the circumference of a circle is pd (3.14159 times of the diameter that means the circumference of the molten sea is 31.519 cubits).

[34] Stanley B. Marrow, The Words of Jesus in Our Gospels: A Catholic Response to Fundamentalism (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 26.

^[35] J. I. Packer, “Scripture,” New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, [1988], 2003), 630.

[36] A. T. Robertson, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament (London: SPCK, 1931), 262. C. F. D. Moule too followed Robertson’s translation and interpretation of u`per as ‘on behalf of.’ This may also mean ‘in most cases one who acts on behalf of another takes his place.’ Cf. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 64.

[37] Erickson, Christian Theology, 814.

[38] Barr, Fundamentalism, 28.

[39] Raja, Indian Theological Studies, 34(1997), 128.

[40] It was developed by Peter Abelard. It says the human nature of Christ, and regards his death as an example of the love we are to show for God. It sees Christ’s death as a demonstration of God’s love. Erickson, Christian Theology, 785.

[41] The early developers were Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. In Origen’s view, in the cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil, Satan controls over human beings. Satan became the owner of human. Origen used 1 Cor. 6:20 that we have been bought with a price (also Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45). In this it was Satan, not God who demanded Christ's blood. Satan was deceived according to this theory. Origen said, first Satan thought that he could be the lord of the soul of Jesus, but Jesus was resurrected and defeated Satan. Erickson, Christian Theology, 793f.

[42] It was introduced by Anselm (1033-1109). It is also called Penal Substitution theory. According to this theory, Christ died to satisfy a principle in the very nature of God the Father. Erickson, Christian Theology, 796.

^[43] T. W. J. Morrow, “Substitution and Representation,” New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, [1988], 2003), 666.

[44] Romans 3:25: Whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement (i`lasth,rion-propitiation-KJV, expiation-RSV; sacrifice for reconciliation-NJB) by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed.

[45] Atone for wrongdoing: to make amends, show remorse, or suffer punishment for wrongdoing.

[46] To win somebody's favour: to appease or conciliate somebody or something.

[47] C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1932], 1937), 54f.

[48] Barr, Fundamentalism, 29.

^[49] Morrow, “Substitution and Representation,” New Dictionary of Theology, 666.

[50] Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights, 29.

[51] See Raja, Indian Theological Studies, 34(1997), 130.

[52] J. Rosario Narchison, “Christian Fundamentalism: Its Lesson for India,” in Shabda Shakti Sangam, edited by Vandana Mataji (Rishikesh, U.P.: Vandana Mataji, 1995), 246. Herbert Spencer was an English philosopher. He became the most influential exponent of social evolutionism. He was educated largely in an atmosphere of religious dissent (and especially influenced by Quakers and Unitarians of the Derby Philosophical Society).

He settled on evolution as the basic principle governing all change in the universe and began propagating a theory of evolution even before Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species appeared in 1859. Spencer argued that the force behind the cosmic process of evolution was unknown and unknowable. Thus he began to challenge a literal interpretation of Genesis. Spencer also used the evolution debate as a forum to attack the idea of established religion. For detail, see Garry W. Trompf, “Spencer, Herbert,” Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade, vol. 14 (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1987), 4-5.

[53] Narchison, Shabda Shakti Sangam, 248.

[54] As for example the speaking of Balaam’s ass (Num. 22:28-30), the sun stopping at the bidding of Joshua (Josh 10:12-14) etc.

[55] Raja, Indian Theological Studies, 34(1997), 132.

[56] Narchison, Shabda Shakti Sangam, 248.

[57] It is quite vivid that the first three Gospels have similarities and dissimilarities (as described below). In the mean time, it is also clear that three of these four resemble each other to a great extent, both in their wording and their ordering of materials.[57] The first three Gospels, because of the extensive agreement of their materials are put in a parallel column for the sake of comparison. This type of agreement is called a synopsis. So, the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels and their authors are called the Synoptists. The similarity of material evidenced by this arrangement coupled with notable dissimilarities within the first three gospels given rise to a problem which is called the Synoptic Problem, cf. The passages that are common to the three Synoptic Gospels are called the ‘threefold tradition.’ The ‘twofold tradition’ designates passages found in two Synoptic Gospels, and ‘unique traditions’ are those contained in a single witness, Matthew, Mark or Luke. Another traditions employed twice in the same Gospel are called ‘doublets.’ Frederick Gast, “Synoptic Problem,” The Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, et al. (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1968), 1, 5 (NT portion). In fact, more time, effort and scholarly investigation have been spent on this Synoptic Problem than any other biblical issue. Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem” An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, [1987], 1994), 16.

[58] David was incited to count the fighting men of Israel by a) God (2 Samuel 24: 1) or (b) by Satan (I Chronicles 2 1:1); In that count (a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) or (b) One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5) fighting men were found in Judah; Jehoiachin was (a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) or (b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9) years when he became king of Jerusalem; Who was high priest when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread? (a) Abiathar (Mark 2:26); (b) Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (I Samuel 1:1; 22:20); When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Those who were with him hear (Acts 9: 7) or did not hear (Acts 22: 9) the voice; Judas bought a field (Acts 1: 18) or He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5) with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus; What was the exact wording on the cross? (a) “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37); (b) “The King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26); (c) “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:38); (d) “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (John 19:19); What did the centurion say when Jesus dies? (a) “Certainly this man was innocent” (Luke 23:47); (b) “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39) and many other discrepant overlapping are found in the Bible.

[59] This criticism focuses on the individual units or material into which the Gospels may be subdivided. It identifies the different forms or subgenres of literature which appear and it attempts to describe the ways in which these forms developed during the period of time in which they were passed along by word of mouth prior to the writing of the Gospels themselves. Cf. C. L. Blomberg, “Form Criticism,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel G. Green, Scot McKnight and Howard I. Marshall (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 243. In other words, we can say that it is the study of the form or genre of independent pericope (an independent unit of one saying or account) before it came into a written form.

[60] Textual criticism is the science that compares all known manuscripts of a given work in an effort to trace the history of variations within the text so as to discover its original form. Textual criticism is therefore, of special significance to the biblical interpreter because it attempts to determine the authentic words of an author, Gordon D. Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 3.

[61] It is concerned with studying the theological motivation of an author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangement, editing and modification of traditional material and in the composition of new material or the creation of new forms within the traditions of the early Christianity. Norman Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism? (London: SPCK, 1970), 1. Redaction criticism is the study of NT texts that concentrates on the unique theological emphases that the writers place upon the materials they used, their specific purposes in writing their works, and the Sitz im Leben out of which they wrote. Robert H. Stein, “Redaction Criticism,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, vol. 5, (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 647.

[62] Sociological criticism can be understood as the analytical study of the social and cultural life setting of the early Christian community.

[63] A similitude is an extended simile (an explicit comparison using “like” or “as”). It is a comparison relating a typical or recurring event in real life and is often expressed in the present tense. The parable of the leaven (Mt 13:31–32) is a similitude. K. R. Snodgrass, “Parable,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel G. Green, Scot McKnight and Howard I. Marshall (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 593.

[64] Gordon D. Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” 3.

[65] Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, translated by Bertram Lee Woolf (New York: Scribner’s, n.d.), 3.

[66] Stein, “Redaction Criticism,” ABD, vol. 5, 648.

[67] In such editorial process the Evangelists have sometimes added intensification and explanations. While they are not frequent in Mark, Matthew and Luke have more such editorial expressions. Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, translated by John Marsh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972), 326, 327. He choked out certain examples for this. Among them is Mt 21:33. In the allegory of the wicked husbandmen, Matthew has followed Mark’s example and inserted avkou,sate to make it smooth. Likewise, Luke also furnished the speech material with emphases and explanations. In the metaphor of the kingdom divided against itself, he added in 11:18b: o[ti le,gete evn Beelzebou.l evkba,llein me ta. daimo,niaÅ This shows that the editors not only collected and presented the materials that are in their hands as they are, but they had their own theology and do editing/redaction.

[68] Matthew 10:5-6: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.