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

Methodism Disambig

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)

Headquarters in Heaven?

The "church of 'GOD'", Anderson, Indiana is not protesant but a non-denominational Holiness believeing group or assembly of people. Church assemblies known as Anderson are affiliated with Anderson. Our headquarters is not in Anderson but in heaven. Also the, "church of 'GOD'", Anderson is a movement which had her beginnings in 1880 and not in 1881.

Perhaps you could compare the recent tossing out of a Pastor by the "headquarters" in Anderson because he was fellowshipping with a different COG group other than those affialited with the COG(Anderson). He was asked to resign for the same reason that Daniel Sidney Warner was removed from the group that he was with befoe 1880. It is sad to me that we have created the same image to what D.S. Warner left and preached against. It is a safe assumption that if a organization has any rights over the local congregation and/or its pastor.....they probably have a head quarters. Similar to the same Babylonian System that D.S. Warner left to preach Unity of Gods people, One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, and One Lord. He would have renounced this man-rule type of behavior not matter how logical and how good it sounded. Any thoughts?

Dear Sir

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have made some of the corrections discussed. I changed headquarters to the perhaps more acceptable "central offices". I restored the second paragraph, because it was a quote from the church web site. Explanations and detail should be added after the quote, rather than inserted within it. I restored the date of origin to the web site data, for the time being; until further research into the matter, I think accepting the church's info on this is the best approach. I made a few other changes to keep the article more consistent and also to restore some links that were broken. I hope this will help the article as well as address some of your concerns. Please engage us in discussion of the matter. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 15:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

FWIW: The objection to "Protestant(ism)" stems from certain CoG teachings on Revelation. As I learned it: the Dragon (Rev 12:3) is Paganism thru the centuries prior to Pentacost; The Beast (Rev 13:1) is Catholicism (Rev 13:4 says: "...and they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast, and they worshipped the beast...); and the Image of The Beast (Rev 13:11) is Protestantism, coming as it has from Catholicism, it still speaks as a dragon (Rev 13:11b), exercises similar power (Rev 13:12a), &c. See also Rev 13:12, 13:15; Therefore, certain of us CoGer's find it distasteful to 'dip the sop', as it were, with all the denominational montebanks whom our Lord Jesus railed against two millennia ago. Personally I ask the question: "Cui Bono?"---who profits, which prob.ly aint perzackly fitting, but I look at it thusly: if it aint a help to my Relationship with Almighty God thru Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, what good is it whether or not it is bad or wrong? While it mite be OK to wear neckties, jewelry, pants on women, long hair on men, cosmetics, gold pens, and a host of other stuff, what does it gain us to indulge in any of this stuff, including dancing, gambling, ignoring the one foot rule betw unmarried members of the opposite sex, drinking, smoking, cussing, carousing, and so on. On the other hand, it's most obv.s abstaining from these "innocent" practices can be conducive to a better life, and lifestyle. And since the world of unbelievers are looking for something to grab on to, it would appear a way of life and living different from the one they are involved in, and dying from, just mite hold more interest for them than if we were so similar to them nobody could tell us apart. Music, TV, public education, the medical profession, protestant ham and bean dinners mite be ok, but I dont see much of anything similar being mentioned in the Bible. It's sorta like our celebration of birthdays. There may not be anything wrong with the practice, but there's only three instances of birthdays being mentioned in the Bible (I think !). On Pharoah's birthday he caused his chief baker to be hanged (Gen 40:22). After the birth of Jesus, Herod caused all male children under the age of two years to be slain (Matt 2:16). And on Herod's birthday, he chopped off the head of John the Baptist. and we wont get into the dogma surrounding the birthday of our Lord Jesus... thanks kenn 1RmSchlHse@gmail.com

some tweaking

I think the article is good overall, but there are a few things that needed to be tweaked. Despite a similar outlook in some matters, there is no verifible historical evidence to link the C of G (Anderson) movement to anabaptism. The only sort of link I can see is possibly the Byrum family, which "came out" of an anabaptist/pietist denomination that was an ancestor of the Evangelical United Brethren which itself merged with the Methodist Church to form the UMC. But, to be charitable, I put (arguably) in parentheses before the word "anabaptist".

Also, I was a bit surprised to see no reference to the Restorationist movement in the article, as it, in what I've studied, is as big an influence as the holiness stream. The polity of the churches, the anti-creedal emphasis, the very name "Church of God", are all Restorationist features. The Winbrenner group is a restorationist group and it was, after all, the movement Warner himself was a part of.

Also, I seem to recall Merle Strege once saying that an historian or pastor from the Cleveland TN group claimed that that group was somehow connected with Warner's movement early on. When one examines the article on the Clevelanders and sees what principles the early leaders of that group stood for, it seems very similar to those of the early Anderson group. So it is possible that there was an early connection; perhaps some of the early Clevelanders received the Gospel Trumpet or was in one of the services held by Warner's evangelistic company. But there is, to my knowledge, no hard evidence of this, so all I did was insert a "probably" in the mention of the Cleveland group in the article. -JLW

Warner was definitely in contact with Mennonite groups, and even tried for a union with them at one time. I added a reference to some research I did, even though I know that some of my subjectiveness included in it may be considered polemical. As far as with the Restoration, C.W. Naylor claimed in his later years that Warner got his doctrine of the Church from Campbell The Teachings of D. S. Warner and His Associates (and of course Winebrenner). It is quite similar to the Restoration.

Similar to the RESTORATION? CW Naylor?

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).

History section

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)

Changes in the Movement that Followed

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)Truth

Thanks for adding some of the recent doctrinal issues. I think that is very important for this article. However, I am concerned about the ambiguous quality of the list, however. The list needs expounding upon to explain the doctrinal nuances, and how they differ from either what they were, or other COG movements. A simple listing i.e. "Music in the Church" does not explain anything. The D.S. Warner library you linked to is difficult to navigate and is not user friendly. Admiraldowdy 15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes Since 1950

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[1] 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)Truth at HTTP://www.DSWARNERLIBRARY.COM

Church of God still teaches these "doctrines" to some extent:

   * Divine Healing: the belief that God will heal those who love him
   * Holy Living-a life without sin
   * 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

At least the congregation in Århus, Denmark does so. 80.167.218.195 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Eldership as taught by DS Warner?

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)Truth at Http://www.dswarnerlibrary.com

Biblical Eldership Evidence

Here is some of the evidence that you requested. It is abundantly clear that D S Warner and the early pioneers of the church of God taught and practiced biblical eldership as was presented in the eldership presentation on the referenced website. They did not practice the modern day hierarchy governing model, such as exists in Catholicism, Protestantism and nearly every 7th seal congregation of the Church of God (as well as the other splinters). Be open minded and study their early writings and you can see for yourself:

Read D. S. Warner, Elders and Deacons, Gospel Trumpet Article, Aug 15, 1886

“When Paul wrote to the church at Philippi, he addressed all the saints, "with the bishops and deacons." He did not say with the bishops, elders, and deacons; but recognized only two classes of officers —bishops and deacons. A plurality of elders were ordained in "every church." Acts 14:23. Therefore Paul terms these elders, bishops. Bishop and elder then is the same in Scripture. But two classes of officers in the church at Philippi: bishops —the ministers of the word of truth, and overseers of the flock-and deacons—the ministers of the temporal affairs of the church. I emphasize! Anything more than this is apostasy.” -- The Cleansing of the Sanctuary, by H. M. Riggle & D. S. Warner

“All the ministers of the Gospel are elders, and then there are chosen of God local elders to take an oversight over each local congregation of the Church of God.” -- D. S. Warner, August 15, 1885 issue of The Gospel Trumpet.

“The authority of a true gospel elder is not the creature of his ordination to the office, but is the direct result of those gifts, which qualify him for the eldership. Babylon officers have their authority wholly by virtue of their office; but scriptural elders have their office by virtue of their authority. The first is beast power given by the dragon, the second is Divine authority conferred by the Word and Spirit of God. The first exercise lordship over God’s heritage, the later rule by a holy example and by the power of God’s Spirit, and Word in their hearts.” – D. S. Warner, August 15, 1885 issue of The Gospel Trumpet.

“The only coming out that we teach and that God wants, is simply a return from all human works, and unscriptural governments, and authorities, and standards, and rules, and managements to the Mighty God; to His likeness, His holiness, His cementing love, and to His all-wise control. Not setting aside any of the gifts and offices He has set in the body, but recognizing them all, but not acknowledging any lords over God’s heritage.” --D. S. Warner

I suggest that you provide evidence from D S Warner that supports the governing model of one pastor per congregation, who is the "shepherd" of the "sheep" (flock). It simply is not in Warner's writings nor was it his practice, and it definitely is not found in the New Testament. It is a deep rooted tradition coming from a spirit of apostasy. It is foreign to New Testament teaching or practice.

Biblical Eldership Evidence Does NOT Justify Removal of Links

As to all of the information that is printed, I can not ascertain either way. Do you think that it is justifiable to remove links and vandalize different articles of Church of God groups? WWW.DSWARNERLIBRARY.COM

Tithing and Modesty of Dress?

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)

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)

List of Dorctrines that are not taught in the Anderson Church of God

For some reason there seems to be contention concerning this part of the article. Anyone can read the books published by the Gospel Trumpet and even some of the books published by Warner Press to validate this part of the article as FACT. Or you can call Anderson College and randomly ask any one who is a member of the Church of God(Anderson) if they still teach modesty as the Reformers in 1880. If you desire you can print out the list from the Encylopedia and they will confirm that they do not teach and hold the standards just as the Ministry in 1880-1912. Or if you desire you can access http://www.dswarnerlibrary.com yourself and read over 70-100 books that were published beliefs of D.S. Warner and the Ministry of that time. As to the issue of Tithing, I am not aware of ONE, I mean ONE Anderson COG that has a box in the back of the Sanctury or church building that is used for the express purpose of freewill offerings. As to the issue of modesty, most Churches could state the same as you stated when you said that its older members are more modest than the younger members. However when you compare the standard of Modesty that was taught and preached from 1880-1912, it CANNOT be stated that Anderson Church of God, teaches a standard of modesty even similar to those. Again you can access www.dswarnerlibrary.com to validate this information for yourself.

I noticed that someone had thought that the website www.dswarnerlibrary.com is an obscure website so therefore the sources cannot or may not be accurate. The Wikipedia editors could verify the statements within the article by asking: 1) The Anderson Colleges themselves, read a book written by Meryl Strege, The Church of God Its History....(I have the book perhaps this is the wrong title...I will correct this edit later)

2)Dale Rude: Biblical Eldership Church of God, he has the probably the largest library of books of the Church of God that were written

3)Call Park Place Church of God, and ask to speak to the presiding Minister, and ask him if he teaches the Doctrine exactly like D.S. Warner and the Reformation Ministry. He will confirm that no he does not.

4)Call Danny Laine, the head of the *Restoration Church of God),he probably has the second largest library. As a matter of fact Anderson College has brought the Saints in from the Restoration Church of God as a example of how the Saints from 1880-1912 probably dressed and believed.

5) Call any Anderson Church of God and ask them

6) Contact Reformation Publishers, the largest independent publisher of Church of God books

7) Contact WWW.Zion-Publisher.com and ask publisher Mark Burke

8) Contact Faith Publishing House and ask publisher Willie Murphy

All of these sources will state the same truth, the Anderson Church of God as a WHOLE, does not preach, teach or believe the standards of the Church of God as believed by Warner and the Reformation ministers that preached from 1880-1912.

Daniel Sidney Warner article

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)

Re:Daniel Sidney Warner Article

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)

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)

Absolon, The scripture teaches us to hate or love less every false way. :) The reason that I responded to you on this format is because you wrote that "Some fellow was disputing Warners pivotal involvement in the Church of God". This is why I responded to you. I also felt it necessary since this is a article about a controvisal religious individual who preached strong doctrine for true Christians, that the truth concerning his involvement with the Anderson Movement as we know it today is nul. He was a true Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Exactly which part of the article is not neutral?

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)

What part of the article is not true?

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)