Gillespie provides biblical support for using good and necessary consequences, first by citing Christ’s appropriation of the burning bush passage (see chapter 1), as well as by giving several more examples of the way in which the New Testament authors used the Old Testament. Second, the law of God in the Old Testament was designed to be a summary of principles from which other applications should be derived by “good and necessary consequence.” Third, since the opinions of men are often refuted by showing them the consequences of their words, we must assume that the all-wise God is fully aware of the consequences of His words. To deny that the consequences of God’s Word represent His will is “blasphemous,” for, according to Gillespie, “This were to make the only wise God as foolish man, that cannot foresee all things which will follow from his words. Therefore we must needs hold, ’tis the mind of God which necessarily followeth from the words of God.” Fourth, if we deny the legitimacy of good and necessary consequence, then many absurdities will result, such as denying that women may come to the Lord’s Supper. Fifth, in reality, no one is able to avoid using necessary consequences in theological discussions. All people must deduce conclusions from Scripture if they intend to make any assertions regarding what the Scriptures teach. Every controversy in the history of the church has been over “the sense of Scripture” rather than over its express statements. Sixth, even civil magistrates deduce consequences from civil law in order to prove that a particular offense is in violation of the law, and “[we must not] deny to the Great God that which is a privilege of the little gods or magistrates.”

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 32-33.