Non-creationist Christians are compromisers (Talk.Origins)
- People who call themselves Christians but who don't accept creationism, such as theistic evolutionists, are seriously misguided. The same applies even to those who reject a particular interpretation of creationism such as young-earth creationism. The Bible does not allow such compromises.
- Morris, Henry M. 1984. Recent creation is a vital doctrine. Impact 132 (June).
- Sarfati, Jonathan, 2004. Refuting Compromise. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
Talk.Origins' response doesn't attempt to address whether or not the claim is actually true, instead assuming that it isn't and therefore berating creationists for making it. (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Those who disparage the Christianity of Christian theistic evolutionists (many creationists deny that theistic evolutionists can even be Christian) show only their own arrogance and hubris.
It is not arrogance nor hubris to point out facts, if indeed that's what they are. And Talk.Origins makes no attempt to refute the claim.
The claimants are saying that they, not God, get to dictate the proper way for another person to relate to God and the Bible.
Talk.Origins is here putting their own interpretation on the situation and criticising creationists for that. Creationists are not saying that they get to dictate, but simply pointing out that the beliefs of the compromisers are inconsistent with the Biblical record.
A religious relationship with God is a personal matter; it cannot effectively be decided by total strangers.
Creationists have repeatedly pointed out that it is not the person's relationship to God that is being questioned, but their acceptance of the Biblical record.
2. Many creationists are themselves compromisers. They compromise on major factual matters, rejecting the flat earth and solid firmament that a plain literal reading indicates.
The Bible does not teach a flat earth and solid firmament, let alone doing so plainly. Talk.Origins makes no attempt to support their claim, apparently just assuming it to be true.
They compromise on details; for example, allowing insects and other "creeping things with the breath of life" not to be on Noah's Ark as the Bible says. They compromise on Biblical teachings, such as the numerous dietary and other laws in Exodus through Deuteronomy.
Again, just because Talk.Origins says that these things are so, does not make them so.
Those excluding insects from the Ark are not compromising what the Biblical says in Genesis 7:14 - 15 because they are not saying that the Bible mean something different, but they are simply suspecting that insects do not qualify.
Reference: [http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-039b.htm HOW COULD ALL THE ANIMALS GET ON BOARD NOAH'S ARK? ]
Genesis 7:22 gives a clue by saying, "All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died." Insects absorb oxygen through abdominal membranes and do not have nostrils nor can be said to breathe air in normal usage of the term. So the question is not what the Bible says, but whether or not insects meet the description.
As far as the dietary and other laws in Exodus – Deuteronomy are concerned, the dietary laws were repealed by God in Act 10:9-16. The other laws in question were part of Jewish ceremonial and civil law. The civil code was the law for the nation of Israel and the ceremonial law was superseded by Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. So there is no compromise here but a procedural change made within the Bible itself.
Most of all, they compromise on Christian theology, rejecting the spirit of Christ's teaching to be humble in one's religion [e.g., Matt. 6:1-6].
The quoted passage teaches that we should not try and make ourselves the focus of admiration; it has nothing to do with the question at hand. A more appropriate text is 2Corinthians 10:5 : "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."