Talk:Church of God (Anderson, Indiana)/Archive 1

message: Hi, your Wesleyan link goes to the Wesleyan Disambig page, so I piped it to "Methodism." Feel free to pipe it to something else if I mis-interpreted the usage.
--Asbestos 01:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Methodism Disambig

message: :Dear sir, you are certainly entitled to your beliefs and viewpoints, but I would like to address a few points. First, as to the "spelling", the Church of God does not use the small caps for church and ALL CAPS for God in their writings on their web site. As for beginnings being in 1880 instead of 1881, do you have any verification of this? The church's OWN official website gives 1881 here: History. On being Protestant, I understand your concern, and non-denominational seems to work fine in the article. But as far as a neutral point of view encyclopedic article is concerned, the church is categorized by the world at large as a Protestant denomination. I hold the same belief as you about this concerning my own church, but have tried to resist putting my own beliefs and point of view into encyclopedic articles. Such just results in people going back and forth changing the articles back and forth to fit their own points of view. I will be making a few changes that will hopefully be respectful of your point of view, while removing some things that are not good form for an encyclopedia (such as the all caps for emphasis, which has also destroyed some links to other articles). Thanks. Have a blessed day. - Rlvaughn 12:29, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wondering why the objection to "Protestant?" Theologically the church is very much in the Wesleyan/Holiness heritage, except for the difference on the practice of baptism, which is more aligned with the Baptist view. Either way, does this not make the church within "Protestant"  Christianity?  Pollinator 15:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Pollinator, I cannot address the specifics of this person's objection to the term "Protestant", but can suggest some of the various objections: (1) some bodies object because they believe their faith historically predates the Protestant Reformation or flowed from a different stream [this type of objection might fit some Mennonites, Amish, Baptists, etc.]; (2) some bodies believe their group is a restitution or restoration of the church by God, and therefore the old historical connections are irrelevant [this objection might fit Church of God believers, and generally seems to be that of Church of Christ non-instrumental, et al.]; or (3) some bodies believe they are the "true church" and therefore have a direct historical connection to the apostles. These are just some possibilities. But by the generally adopted standards of classification of Christian bodies, most non-Catholics are "Protestants". You might remember that I advocated that the Anglican Church not be classified under the Protestant umbrella, but accepted the concensus of the majority (I'm not Anglican). - Rlvaughn 21:58, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In this situation, I believe RL's 2nd suggestion is the case.  The CoG (I am an attender of this "movement"/church/denomination) believes that all Christian believers are in one Church--God's church--hence "Church of God".  Most in the CoG would therefore say that terms like "Protestant" and "Catholic" are divisive and ignore the unity of Christianity.  Although I agree with that as a statement of faith, in an encyclopedia we need to communicate with a world that understands Christian belief in these terms, I think.  I'm trying to formulate (and will add when I've done so) a sentence that basically notes that the CoG is an outgrowth from American Protestant denominations, but that one of the CoG's principles is a denial of the label "Protestant" as being divisive and detrimental--although I'm wondering if the article truly needs it? Perhaps it does.  Hard to put it simply, but I'll see what I can think up. If someone can beat me to the punch, please do! Jwrosenzweig 22:26, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your idea to note "that the CoG is an outgrowth from American Protestant denominations, but that one of the CoG's principles is a denial of the label 'Protestant' as being divisive and detrimental" would be a good addition to the article, since that is a part of the movement's belief system. - Rlvaughn 01:31, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Sir 

message: Ouch....Although the Restoration would like for you to believe such a statement is true, anyone who has read Brother Warner and his fellow ministers writings can plainly see the differences between what they now teach and what the ministry from 1880-1912 taught as truth. Go to http://WWW.DSWARNERLIBRARY.COM for the most complete library of writings from the time frame of 1880-1970. As to C.W. Naylor, it is a shame that he apparantly lost his vision due to the compromise fo Anderson and the Movement as a whole. It is amazing to me that modern day ministers who cannot pray the prayer of faith, who have never seen a miracle in their life, cannot cease from sin, and have all types of worldliness and ungodliness in their midst actually would have the auducity to write an opinion of Brother Warner. These are mere attempts to tear down truth. I am sorry for Brother Naylor, I am sorry that he was blinded later in his life. It is sad. However, I would do not want to be held accountable for posting Naylors expression of bitterness on my website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.216.28 (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar to the RESTORATION? CW Naylor? 

message: This article could really use a better history of the Church of God (Anderson). As it is, all of the article's "history" is found in the beginning summary, when an entire section should be devoted to it. -Tigerboy91 02:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I added some of the major changes in beliefs and teachings of the majority of the Movement since 1880. I will begin to accumulate the Historical edition unless someone else wishes to write it. For complete accuracy, you can access a complete library of History of the Movement at http://www.DSWARNERLIBRARY.COM for external references for the article.  --66.156.25.64 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in the Movement that Followed 

message: Sir,
If you consider 1950 recent, I can accept the first statement of "recent doctrinal issues". As to music in the Church, I believe that any individual understands what music is and what it is not! As to the library and the link being user friendly, you are probably right. I have no doubt that someone other than myself could do a much better job than me on the site. Perhaps you could explain to me why the Church of God(Anderson) or the Univerisities of the COG,(Anderson) have not done compiled a list of books of the "HERITAGE" of the Church of God and put them in a better web-site than mine! With all of the resourses of Anderson, it would be a breeze. The issue is not the site layout, or the color or being user friendly; plainly put, it is the teachings of Anderson as a movement verses the teachings of the Reformation Ministry who had signs, healings and wonders.
--74.224.2.33 12:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes Since 1950 

message: This is the second time this link has shown up this way on Wikipedia, so I am asking the editor to please verify with written proof that Warner taught what you are teaching. Unless a book or writing can be quoted to prove this claim, it is deceitful and untrue to continue to state such. It is against Wikipedia Rules of editing also. --72.152.154.164 04:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Eldership as taught by DS Warner? 

message: Modesty of dress: wearing clothing that reveals to much of the body as to tempt the opposite sex to lust. 
Free will offerings rather than the doctrine of tithing
These two items were removed from the list of items that is preached in most Anderson COG congregations today. Modesty of dress is an issue that most would consider open to debate. However, the doctrine of tithes is a different matter altogether. Most Churches of God, including the Anderson Movement now teach tithing or 10% of your income as a requirement that they believe that God instituted. Warner did not teach this. This is why they did not even TAKE UP OFFERINGS! They gave free-will offerings instead. Free will offerings in this case would mean that a box would be placed in the back of the church where each individual would donate what they could donate.
http://www.dswarnerlibrary.com
:You are vandalizing the article with unsourced claims. CoG(Anderson) practices Free Will Offering rather than tithing which is not teached in CoG. Modesty of dress is mostly something you find among the older members, but can also be found among younger members. This is even more true in regard to smoking, which is generally frowned upon. CoG(Anderson) does not practice tithing, and modesty of dress is usually observed practice. 80.167.218.195 01:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW. You seem confused about the list. The list is about doctrines NO longer teached. And not a list about doctrines STILL teached. 80.167.218.195 01:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tithing and Modesty of Dress? 

message: Is there someone with a better understanding of the Church of God history who can address a dispute currently on the Daniel Sidney Warner. There is an unregistered user who seems to dispute that Warner was involved in the establishment of the Church of God. I don't know enough on the subject to get involved in the discussion, but I believe his comments/changes should be addressed. Absolon S. Kent 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsure of why this was posted here and not on my talkpage. You obviously have some connection with the Warner Library and have issues with the Church of God headquarters. I just don't think Wikipedia was designed as a forum for such battles. Christ wasn't about division...at least I don't think so (in my humble opinion). Absolon S. Kent 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I just don't think Wikipedia was designed as a forum for such battles. Good luck in your quest. Absolon S. Kent 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Sidney Warner article

message: Absolon,
Warner would not want his name attached the the Anderson Church of God because they have drifted so far from the truth. Read his writings and then look at the Anderson COG and you will comprehend what I am writing. The Anderson COG does not believe what he believed. True, he was a pivitol tool in the Hand of God in reestablishing truth that was lost in the Dark Ages of Roman Catholism and Protestantism, but he did not start the COG, Anderson. He would preach against them just as he preached against the Methodist, the Free Methodist, the Baptist, the Roman Catholics ets........every church that did not line up the word of God and accept the HOLY BIBLE as her only creed was BABYLON. I am sorry that you are unaware of the truth, but the Anderson COG does not even come close to the Church of God as Warner knew her. They are diametricially opposed in Word, Doctrines and Spirit. The ministry is powerless and without understanding of truth of Gods word. They are unsure of who is right, if they are in truth or if everyone is saved. They do not accept any dress standards and deny the Holy Scripture when it clearly states that a Woman should not wear that which pertains to a man. This disobedience is one of many doctrines that they no longer teach. They do not teach true Holiness. These statements are not meant to hurt or be judgemental in any way. Call the Anderson Headquarters yourself. They do not believe that you can live without sin on a consistant basis any longer. Call Steve Wiliams at Reformatation Publishers..........ask him. By these statements I must tell you that I am NOT SAYING THAT MANY PEOPLE WHO ATTEND CHURCH IN THE ANDERSON COG ARE NOT SAVED, If they are living without sin, they are saved. I have no doubt that God has many peopel still messed up in the Anderson movement, just as he had in the Methodist in 1880 when Warner called them out of Babylon. Anyway if you wish to contact me, you can do so at librarycog@bellsouth.net.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsure of why this was posted here and not on my talkpage. You obviously have some connection with the Warner Library and have issues with the Church of God headquarters. I just don't think Wikipedia was designed as a forum for such battles. Christ wasn't about division...at least I don't think so (in my humble opinion). Absolon S. Kent 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I just don't think Wikipedia was designed as a forum for such battles. Good luck in your quest. Absolon S. Kent 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:Daniel Sidney Warner Article

message: I wonder if this is that same guy that put the "This article is not neutral" on the DS Warner article and then had to take it off because he could not get anyone to voice exactly which part was not true or at least an opinion. Just holding my breath here to see how long this lasts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exactly which part of the article is not neutral? 

message: It seems that everyone who is educated of the history of the Church of God(Anderson) realizes that we do not teach or believe what the Church taught in the past. I am unsure of what is going on or as to why someone would argue that point. We all know that they used to teach against pants on women, music in the church, divorce for any reason, ministers who received a salery, etc. Why is this even a issue?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What part of the article is not true?