The Ancient Faith

Home               Salvation               The Church of Christ               Acceptable Worship               Christian Ethics               Doctrinal Issues     The Holy Scriptures               Special Pages



Johnny Elmore

The subject which demands our attention is truly an important one. It is important because most, if not all of us, believe that we must have divine authority for all that we preach and practice. The subject also involves discussion about exactly what is an example and what makes an example binding? This is important because some preachers of the church of Christ have become so liberal that they now deny that authority can be established by examples or necessary inferences.


Revel Lemmons, former editor of FIRM FOUNDATION, stated at the close of the Arlington Meeting in 1968,

“I have listened closely to the three ways of establishing authority – command, example, inference. And I am persuaded that this needs closer examination. I believe that Bible authority rests solely on the revelationary nature of scriptures, and that dealing with necessary inference and approved examples involves the use of the human mind, and therefore interpretation. Since no scripture is given for private interpretation, there is actually no Biblical ground for disfellowship in differences that are centered either in necessary inference or in approved example.” (1)

Brother Lemmons later affirmed in an editorial that the only way a thing can be proved essential for men today is by a command. (2)  Another brother, Milo Richard Hadwin, stated: “Those within the Restoration Movement who have written on the subject usually have assumed that at least some of the New Testament examples are binding. Most of the writing has sought to determine when examples are binding. In contrast, the New Testament seems to provide no basis for concluding that its examples are binding. It does not speak in terms of a pattern of examples. Neither churches nor individuals in the New Testament are presented as patterns to be imitated in specific detail.” (3)  This thesis finally led the same writer to say: “The implication is that if examples have no authority in themselves to require imitation, then the example of Acts 20:7 has no authority to require the exclusive observance of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week.” (4) He also said: “The other involves the plurality of elders in each congregation. Titus was commanded to ‘appoint elders in every city’ (Titus 1:5). However, only an example exists of appointing ‘elders in every church’ (Acts 14:23}. The latter establishes the right to have a plurality of elders in every church, but this example alone would establish the necessity.” (5) So we can see that some of the most basic teachings of the New Testament have come under attack.

Not long after I began to preach, I adapted a sermon from N. B Hardeman in which he asked the question: “How Does the Bible Teach?” Hardeman showed that the Bible teaches in three ways:

(1) By precept – direct statement or positive command;

(2) approved example; and

(3) necessary inference.

With some modifications, I still believe that is true. Hadwin’s study is wrong in its conclusions but it does have some interesting information. He shows that the view that the Bible teaches by example comes to us with the weight of antiquity, tracing expressions of the restoration plea as far back as 262 A.D. He shows that even John Calvin in 1537 proposed that the Lord’s Supper “ought to be dispensed every Lord’s Day at least; such was the practice in the Apostolic Church, and ought to be ours …” He also shows that two documents launching the Restoration Movement in America stress the importance of New Testament examples. [In 1804, Barton Stone and others disbanded the Springfield Presbytery because they “soon found that there was neither precept nor example in the New Testament for such confederacies …” In 1809, Thomas Campbell wrote in his “Declaration and Address,” “Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their Church constitution and management, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church; either in express terms or by approved precedent. ” (6)

Alexander Campbell later wrote: “The apostles were commissioned by the Lord to teach the disciples to observe all things he had commanded them. Now we believe them to have been faithful to their master, and consequently he gave them to know his will. Whatever the disciples practiced in their meetings with the approbation of the apostles, is equivalent to an apostolic command to us to do the same. To suppose the contrary, is to make the half of the New Testament of non-effect. For it does not altogether consist of commands, but of approved precedents. Apostolic example is justly esteemed of equal authority with an apostolic precept.”  He continued, “… the order of worship they gave the churches was given them by their Lord, and their example is of the same force with a broad precept.” (7)

However, it has been pointed out that Campbell departed from this rule. In fact, it seems he opposed those who saw patterns in the details of what the New Testament church did.  Concerning cooperation, he wrote: “There is too much squeamishness about the manner of cooperation. Some are looking for o model similar to that which Moses gave for building the tabernacle. These seem not to understand that this is as impossible as it would be incompatible with the genius of the gospel… A model for making types, paper, ink, and for printing the Bible, might as rationally be expected, as a model for the cooperation of churches …” (8) Was it not the abandonment of this rule that brought about the wholesale apostasy of the disciples?


In 1958, Brother J.D.  Thomas wrote a book, “We Be Brethren,” which was purported to be “the solution of brotherhood problems. ” (9)  Some of the things in the book may be helpful, but the main contribution seems to be what Brother Thomas very egotistically referred to as the “Standard Authority Diagram.” It consists, basically, of an analysis of generics, specifics, and expedients. The required items in any authorized action are indicated by heavy, black lines, and the optional items are indicated by wavy lines.

The real problem with this was quickly pointed out by critics. Brother Roy E. Cogdill charged: “He puts the ‘wavy line’ of distinction where it arbitrarily suits him and in his use of examples he arbitrarily designates one as binding and another as not binding and expects the rest of us to accept his judgment on the matter. “(10) 

I believe that is a valid criticism. In 1974, Brother Thomas wrote a sequel, “Heaven’s Window,” which to my way of thinking provided no more help than the first. Maybe it is just me, but I found both books wordy and obscure.  In 1975, Brother Thomas fl. Warren wrote a book, “When Is An Example Binding?” I found this book to be helpful. Brother Warren prefers to call what has been generally termed “examples’ as accounts of action.” I do not believe that is original with him but I believe it is a valid point. He probably got it from Roy Deaver, who wrote: “Literally hundreds of times the question has been asked: ‘When is an example binding?’ This is the wrong question. If it is an example it is binding, and if it is not binding it is not an example. The question ought to be: When does the Bible account of an action constitute an example?”(11)


Now my dictionary gives five definitions of the word “example”: “1. One or a portion taken to show the character or quality of all; a sample.  2. That which is to be followed or imitated; a pattern. 3. A precedent, model, or parallel case. 4. A warning case, esp. a punishment inflicted to serve as a warning. 5. An instance illustrating a rule or precept, as a problem to be solved.” (12)

Perhaps all would agree that the last four definitions are relevant to our study, and that the definitions all contain the element of essentiality or something that must be observed or followed. I believe that this is also evident from the meanings of the Greek words which are translated “example.” Let us notice those words briefly.


(1) DEIGMA (digh’-mah) It is defined as “a specimen of any thing, example, pattern: set forth as a warning, Jude 7.” (13)  Although this is not a model to be followed, 1t is a specimen of something to be avoided, namely, the conduct of Sodom and Gomorrah. This reminds me of a man who was asked; “What model is your car? The man replied: “This car ain’t no model – it’s a horrible example.”

(2) HUPODEIGMA (hoop od’ igue man) This word is defined as “an example … with a gen. of the thing to be imitated, Jas. 5:19. (14)  Thus, we are to imitate the patience of the prophets who have spoken in the name of the Lord.

(3) HUPCDEIKNUM (hoop od ike’ moo mee) The proper meaning is “to show by placing under (i.e. before) the eyes. This is rendered, “I have shewed you all things” in the KJV, where the ASV has Paul saying, “In all things I gave you an example” (Acts 20:35).

{4) TUPOS (too’ pos) This word has several meanings, but one definition is “an example.”  it is used “in the technical sense, viz. the pattern in conformity to which a thing must be made,” as in Acts 7:44 and Heb. 8:5.” (16). It is used “in an ethical sense, a dissuasive example, pattern of warning: plur. of ruinous events which serve as admonitions or warnings to others” as in 1 Cor. 10:6, and as “an example to be imitated: of men worthy of imitation as in Phil. 3:17.” (17)

(5) HUPOGRAMMOS (hoop og ram mos) This word is defined as “a writing-copy and as it concerns the conduct of Jesus as “an example set before one” (1 Peter 2:21). (18)

(6) PARADEIGMATIOZG (par od igve mat id’ zo} This word means “to set forth as an example, make an example of” or in a bad sense “to expose to public disgrace” as in the case of Mary in Matt. 1:19. (19).

From all of this it must be clear that the idea of exemplary conduct is taught in the New Testament and that am example is something that must be imitated or avoided, as the case may be.

I think that Warren’s book is helpful because if stresses the inductive method in interpreting the Scriptures. Incidentally, we do interpret the Scriptures. There are no commands addressed specifically and directly to me, Johnny Elmore.  Even the Great Commission was addressed directly to the apostles, and the only way I know that it is bound on me is to infer from the teaching of the Scriptures that it is. We are responsible for what is implicitly taught in the Scriptures. I like the statement of Robert Camp who wrote: “The reason I am bound by God’s word is not that I read it but that HE wrote it. The reason I am bound by those things implicit in His word is NOT that I inferred it BUT that HE implied it.” (20)  I might also point out that what we are talking about is the study of hermeneutics, the science of interpreting the Scriptures.  I am reminded of what the farm boy said when asked the difference between agriculture and farming. He said that agriculture is something like farming only farming is actually doing it. Wheat we are talking about is actually interpreting the Scriptures.

Warren’s basic thesis in his book is that in order to decide accurately whether a given Biblical instruction, whether statements, commands, questions, accounts of action, etc. is binding on men living today, we must carefully analyze the specific statement, taking into account such things as word meaning and syntax, carefully with the evidence in both the immediate and remote contexts, and then draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence. Essentially, what is advocated is simply good sound hermeneutics based upon the evidence.

Apparently, it is hard to be strictly objective. I found that both Thomas and Warren were not always strictly objective. It appears that Thomas’ main purpose was to defend the cooperation schemes of institutional churches, end Warren fell into the same trap. Warren classed the pattern of cooperation found in the New Testament as “optional and permanent.”  On II Cor. 11:8, where the apostle Paul says: “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service,” Warren says: “The details of this sending are not given in the Scriptures. It is not made clear whether (1) the sending churches sent the wages directly to Paul (that is, without its first going to the church in Corinth and then that church giving it to Paul) or (2) the sending churches sent Paul’s wages to the church in Corinth so that the church there (in Corinth) could then give the wages to Paul. Since the Scriptures have not bound one way of sending the wages to a preacher by cooperating churches (1.e., whether directly to the preacher or indirectly, by way of the receiving church), it is sinful for any man to try to bind either of these ways ta the exclusion of the other. Man must not bind where God has not bound (1 Tim. 4:1-5).” (20) This statement is contradictory to Warren’s own rule of drawing only conclusions warranted by the evidence. There is absolutely no evidence of any church sending to the treasury of another church to be used to support preachers. In fact, his passage plainly teaches the opposite! Goodspeed renders II Cor. 11:8,9: “I robbed other churches, letting them pay me so that I could work for you! And when I was with you and wanted money, I did not burden any of you, for when the brothers came from Macedonia they supplied what I needed.”

I want to give some practical rules or tests for determining when an example is binding. Some of these may be obvious and taken for granted by all. Most of these are embraced in the book by Roy E. Cogdill, “Walking By Faith,” although I have tried to re-phrase them so as to leave out the jargon.


I am almost tempted to do on examples as one Supreme Court justice did. When he was asked about his rule for determining pornography, he said: “I know it when I see it.” We may feel that we know an example when we see it, but Clinton Lockhart gave a good rule in his) book on interpretation: “Every communication of thought, human and divine, given in the language of men, is subject to the ordinary rules of interpretation.” (21)  That means that the rules for determining whether accounts of action are binding are the same as for commands or necessary inferences. Examples are not to be interpreted by a different method or rule. Therefore, we could say that we do have a binding example when the approved actions of the early church reveal God’s will.


I am reluctant to call these “rules,” so I refer to them as “tests.” The essential or binding mature of examples is not established by a single test, but by «a process of elimination.


Positively stated this would mean that when there is only one example of a practice, or when in every occurrence the practice was the same, unless some other passage of scripture can be produced authorizing another practice or showing that the same thing was practiced another way, under the same circumstances, then that example should be followed. If uniformity does not exist, then the optional character of an account of action is established.  Let us make an application.

(1) Every person who was converted in the New Testament era believed and was baptized without delay. The uniformity of such conversions shows that faith and baptism are essential to conversion. If we could find one case in which the person was saved by faith only or by giving to the mourner’s bench, then we would not have uniformity.

(2) The early church observed the communion only upon the first day of the week. If this establishes the right of the church to observe it upon the first day of the week, then it also establishes that it can be observed only upon the first day due to the fact that there is no evidence of its being observed any other day. If we could find one case in which the early church observed it on any other day, then we would not have uniformity.

(3) Kneeling in prayer. Some have pointed out that in the New Testament, Christians are only described as praying while kneeling, rather than standing. However, other exemplary characters prayed in other postures. Jesus evidently prayed while sitting (Matt. 26:20,26), and after falling on his face (Matt. 26:39). The publican who stood while praying was pronounced justified by Jesus (Luke 18:13,14). Therefore, the consideration of uniformity is lacking.

Other actions, such as meeting in an upper room for the communion, the burial of the dead by young men, praying at the ninth hour, and selling old possessions and distributing to the needy are negated by other considerations.


By that, we mean that it must not conflict with the teaching of other clear statements, commands, commands, examples and necessary inferences. It is certain that the Holy Spirit did not teach one thing by command and then teach by example or necessary inference something contradictory.

(1)  The communion on the first day of the week only. We use Acts 20:7 to establish the time for the communion. We have a clear statement in I Cor. 11:26 to the effect that “as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” The word “often” is a relative term. If we had no more information, we would always be in doubt. Put Acts 20:7 tells us how often – “upon the first day of the week.” This example of “how often” does not militate against the express statement but rather complements it. Combined with the information that there was a set time of assembly (I Cor. 16:1,2), that disciples were not to forsake it (Heb. 10:25}, that the assembly was connected with the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:20), this is evidence that this is an example revealing “how often.” Acts 20:7 even shows that this customary assembly is for the very purpose of breaking bread. There is no conflict with any other statement, example or necessary inference.

(2) What about the “upper roam” argument? It is argued that we have uniformity because the meeting of Acts 20:7 was in an upper room (Acts 20:8), on the third story (verse 9), and at the institution of the Lord’s Supper the place of meeting was in an upper room (Mark 14:15).

However, assembling in an upper room is not an exclusive example for we read of brethren assembling in «a private home {Acts 12:12), by the riverside (Acts 16:13), and in a public hall (Acts 19:9). But even if no variation could be shown, it is not harmonious with other precepts.

In John 4:21-24, Jesus positively rules out anyone place or location for worship as being over another. Any place where one can worship in spirit and in truth fills the requirements of this passage. Any place “where two or there” (Matt 18:20), cam be gathered in the name of Christ will fulfill the requirements of place. Consequently, the general law of worship forbids any particular place to the exclusion of others. Moreover, [| Cor. 11:20 reveals the fact of assembly. Na assembling together could exist without an appointed place, but since the Lord did not appoint a place end the general law of worship specifically denies that there would be a divinely designated place, we can only conclude that the upper room is only a circumstance, and an account of action which is not binding on all Christians for all time.

(3) Selling all possessions and distributing to the needy. This has been suggested as an example, but as an example to be binding it would violate an expressed principle in Acts 5:4, where Peter said to Ananias, “While it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it mot in thine own power?” Because it would violate this clearly expressed principle, it must not be construed as binding.


This just simply means that everything taught in the New Testament which is applicable to men today must be within the realm of possibility. This test alone eliminates the features of the gospel which were local and confined to the miraculous age. The gospel with its requirements and blessings is for all people in all the world for all time.

(1) What about baptism in water for remission of sins? Surely this demonstrates that which is of universal application. Enough water is everywhere that there is Life. Where there is not enough water to baptize, men cannot live.

(2) What about the communion on the first day of the week? The elements of the communion are such that they are accessible to all men in every part of the habitable world.


No account of action is binding unless it is relevant, material or essential.

(1) Baptism. No choice is involved in the action of baptism as to immersion or sprinkling since only immersion is authorized. There is a choice involved in the place of baptism since the action, design and results will be the same in any event. Therefore, the action of baptism, immersion, is bound, but the place is not.

(2) Communion. There is no choice in the elements of the communion since the elements are taught by command, example and necessary inference. Therefore, it 1s essential that one unleavened loaf of bread and one cup containing the fruit of the vine are used since anything else could not constitute the communion of the body and blood of the Lord. There is a choice in the place of worship since the outcome is the same so long as it is in spirit and in truth whether it is in one story house or a rented room on the third floor.

(3) Elders. Congregations have no choice about whether they shall have elders or not.  Contrary to what some believe and teach, it is very material as to whether the church has elders. I have stated that every congregation is in one of four categories. It can be scripturally unorganized. 1 believe this is shown by Heb. 5:12, and by the fact that a time element is involved in developing leadership. The congregation has no choice in that. It can be unscripturally organized. By that, I mean it can have offices and organization that are unscriptural, This is not an option. It can he scripturally organized. This is not a choice. When there are men qualified, I believe they must be appointed.  It can be unscripturally unorganized. This is not a choice. Any congregation which has men qualified and does not appoint those men is in violation of the teaching of the Scriptures. Therefore, the example of Acts 14:23 is relevant, material and essential, and binding upon men today.

(4) Do congregations have a choice about how to cooperate? Can one congregation act as a central treasury and undertake a work which is too large for it to do? It was argued by J. D. Thomas that since cooperation itself is optional, and congregations have a choice as to whether to cooperate or not cooperate, then we have latitude to choose any method of cooperation. Roy Cogdill showed that he differed with his own brethren and that Guy N. Woods argued that cooperation is absolutely necessary to Fulfilling the Great Commission and that one church could not do its duty and meet its obligation without cooperation.


I will admit that this test seems trite and almost calculated to stultify someone’s intelligence, but we have all undoubtedly heard examples proposed that do not meet the test of competence.

(1)  Household Baptisms. It has been argued that the references to household baptisms are examples of infant baptism. How do they know this? They infer it. Although that might be a reasonable inference, it is not a necessary inference because there are many household which do not have infants. On the block where I live in Ardmore, there are ten homes on our side of the Street and no one of them contains an infant. The accounts of household baptisms in the New Testament are not competent to prove infant baptism.

(2) Daily communion. Some have claimed that Acts 2:46 constitutes authority for partaking of the Lord’s Supper on some other day then the first day of the week. The claims make that this is an example of the communion being eaten every day of the week. But unless the expression “daily” can be shown to modify the second phrase “breaking bread from house to house” in such a way as to demand that the action of the second expression occurs every day, and unless they can show that the “breaking bread” refers to the commuruon and not to anything else, there is no example at all. It fails the competency test.


{1) Miracles and Signs. The early disciples revealed and confirmed the word by miraculous power, but such is not binding today. The reason is not because God has any less power but that his purposes for performing miracles through men has ceased.

(2) Not preaching to the Gentiles. From Acts 2 through Acts 9, the gospel was not preached to Gentiles. Acts 10 and 11 show that miracles had to occur before the early Christians understood the truth on this matter. It would be sinful for any child of God to refuse to preach the gospel to any race because of this early action.

(3) Jewish customs. Some of the involvement of early Christians in Jewish customs, such as vows and purification, was corrected by the teaching in Ephesians and Hebrews, and therefore are not examples to men today.

(4) Some of the things concerning marriage written by Paul in 1 Corinthians seven were “for the present distress” and therefore limited in application.

(5) The community of goods practiced by the Jerusalem Church was because of an emergency situation (Acts 2:45; 4:32). To contend that this action is binding in all cases is to be guilty of extending the example beyond its legitimate province.

(6) Burial of the dead by young men. (I promised to deal with this). Who could deny that this was a special situation in Acts five? Maybe this would be applicable falling dead because of lying.

There are many incidental circumstances which do not reflect God’s will: Modes of travel, local customs (such as foot washing and praying at the ninth hour). Paul’s occupation as tent maker and other things could not be bound as God’s will today. Over a hundred years ago, Bro. L. B. Wilkes, who was an editor of “Apostolic Times” along with J.W. McGarvey and Moses Lard, debated the Methodist polemic, Jacob Ditzler several times, wrote of the early Christians:

“They doubtless did many things with the divine approbation which were right and were necessary by the circumstances that surrounded them, which are not required of us. But all their conduct that grew out of the circumstance of their discipleship and that was not local and temporary in its nature, having the approbation of God, is evidently law to us.”


As we have repeatedly said, tests for determining when an account of action is binding are based upon scriptural authority, not arbitrary rules of human reasoning. All that the Scriptures teach by precept, example and necessary inference is binding for Peter applied Moses’ prophecy to Jesus in Acts 3:22 when he said: “Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.” The apostle Paul told the Thessalonians, ‘for ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus” and “He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who hath also given unto us his holy spirit” (1 Thess. 4:2,8). Therefore, by inference, we understand that we are to observe all that is taught by Christ through the examples of the New Testament.

But we are also restricted by the Scriptures to the things taught therein. John said: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath mot God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (It John 9). This passage limits us to the total teaching of the example. To go beyond the total teaching of the example is to venture into the area of “silence” for authority.

I want to notice two things brought up by Thomas, which I have not included as rules or tests of an example.

(1) COMMON SENSE: On this Thomas says: “There is no way to interpret the Bible without the use of common sense! By this statement we do not mean to imply that there are no good objective reasons for certain decisions, because there always can and should be good reasons for our decisions. Never could an objective revelation be turned loose, however, to the fancy of a totally subjective or perhaps ‘intuitive’ method of interpretation.” (22) I submit that the last statement is his weakness on the “common sense” argument. The inability of partisan “common sense” to free itself from subjectivity disqualifies it as a determinant for when an action is binding. It seems to me that “common sense” is the “court of last resort” for practices which have lost out in an objective search of God’s word.

(2) COMMON MIND: Thomas attempts to build quite a case of establishing credibility for the “common mind” or the “public truth.” He said: “The concept of the ‘common mind’ means simply that normal men will come to agreement if they sincerely and reasonably and thoroughly examine is the facts that can logically affect a given problem.” (23) Notice how he justifies individual cups by the “common mind.” About us, he says: “These people feel that the single container for the whole congregation is a binding requirement, yet most people hold that the number of containers is not a pattern obligation but only an optional choice. The common mind does not agree that the one container is a pattern.” (24) We do not apprehend the truth of God’s word by counting noses. The “common mind’ has just about ruled out the authority of God’s word.

I conclude by stating that in spite of many efforts to overthrow it, the pattern principle of the New Testament stands. Facts revealed in New Testament accounts of actions and attitudes, whose optional character cannot be established by the tests we have given, are to be regarded as binding.


  1. Reuel Lemmons, “How to Attain and Maintain Fellowship,” THE ARLINGTON MEETING, Cogdill foundation, Marion, In., 1976, page 405
  2. Revel Lemmons, “Editorial,” FIRM FOUNDATION, Dec. 10, 1974, page 2
  1. M. R. Hadwin, “The Role of New Testament Examples As Related to Biblical Authority, Firm Foundation Pub. House, Austin, Tx., 1974, page 43
  2. Ibid., page 53
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid., page 8
  5. Alexander Campbell, “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things No- VII, On the Breaking of Bread. No. II”, THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST, III, Sept. 5, 1825, page 29
  6. Hadwin, page 29
  7. Dust Jacket, WE BE BRETHREN, Biblical Research Press, Abilene, Ix. 1958
  8. Roy E. Cogdill, “Some New Testament Examples Analyzed”, GOSPEL GUARDIAN, Oct. 29, 1959, page 385
  9. Hadwin, page 2
  10. “Example,” WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, pp 286, 2987, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1961
  11. John Henry Thayer, A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1977, page 126
  12. Thayer, pp. 642, 643
  13. Ibid., page 645
  14. Ibid., page 632
  15. Ibid.
  16. Ibid., page 642
  17. Ibid., page 480
  18. Thomas B. Warren, WHEN IS AN EXAMPLE BINDING?, National Christian Press, Jonesboro, Ar. 1975, page 143
  19. Clinton Lockhart, PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION, Gospel Light Publishing Co., Delight, Ar. 1975, page 143
  20. J. D. Thomas, WE BE BRETHREN, Biblical Research Press, Abilene, Tx. 1958, page 41
  21. J. D. Thomas, HEAVEN’S WINDOW, Biblical Research Press, Abilene, Ix. 1974, page 33
  22. ibid, pages 105, 106

 Recommended articles:

Introducing the Church of Christ – Ronny Wade

God’s Sevenfold Unity – Jerry Cutter

Repentance – J. W. McGarvey


The Ancient Faith website is a thematic collection of scholarly yet simple Bible essays and sermons, many of which were composed by Restoration preachers such as J.W. McGarvey, Moses Lard, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Campbell. These courageous men of faith through hours of Bible investigation studied themselves out of denominationalism, asking for “the old paths” (Jer. 6:16) and seeking to return to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We hope you will join with these men in their fervent plea to restore “the ancient order,” “the ancient gospel” or, as it was sometimes called, “the ancient faith.”