The principal efficient cause of the Gospel is God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with respect to both the divine decree of declaring it to mankind and the declaration itself.

Synopsis of a Purer Theology, 238.

There are two commands in the Gospel; one is the command of repentance, and other of faith in Jesus Christ; Mark 1:15 “repent and believe the Gospel.”

Synopsis of a Purer Theology, 242.

Do not all ministers struggle at some point with the question of how to preach Christ from the Old Testament? Do we not wrestle often with unraveling the manner in which Christ and His apostles interpreted the Old Testament? Do we not need to draw sermon applications directly from the text of Scripture in our preaching? Good and necessary consequence was the tool by which our forefathers in the Reformed faith accomplished these ends.

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 36.

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.

When a necessary doctrine or application is legitimately drawn from the text of God’s Word, then that doctrine or application has the very power of the authority of God to enforce it.

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 30.

Reformed principles of biblical interpretation were both a correction and an expansion of earlier methods. Typology was retained in Old Testament exposition based upon the example of Christ and His apostles, but careful rules were established in order to prevent abuses and outlandish allegorizing. Scripture was compared with Scripture (analogia scriptura) in order to harmoniously understand the mind of the single divine Author of the Bible. Clearer passages were used in order to understand more obscure ones and passages that seemed, at first glance, to conflict with one another were woven together into theological formulation, often balancing two sides of the truth.

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 27-28.

A definition of good and necessary consequence is already implicit in the first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Good and necessary consequence is distinguished from matters concerning God’s glory, man’s salvation, and faith or life that are “expressly set down in Scripture.” This includes direct precepts, prohibitions, statements of truth, and clearly approved examples. According to this statement, the term “good and necessary consequence” refers to doctrines and precepts that are truly contained in and intended by the divine Author of Scripture, yet are not found or stated on the surface of the text and must be legitimately inferred from one or more passages of Scripture. As the phrase indicates, such inferences must be “good,” or legitimately drawn from the text of Scripture. In addition, they must be “necessary,” as opposed to imposed or arbitrary.

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 11-12.

A close relationship exists between the widespread distrust of systematic theology and the neglect or denial of the statement found in Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 1:6 : “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture ” (emphasis added). Exegesis and biblical theology tell us what the words of Scripture mean or what distinguishes a particular biblical author from others, yet both often stop short of drawing theological conclusions from Scripture that show us what the Bible teaches as a whole. This is the task of systematic theology, which depends heavily on deducing divinely intended consequences from the text of Scripture. Without such deductions and the conclusions that are based upon them, we lose the ability to ask important questions of the Bible, such as what it teaches about the relationship between the persons of the Holy Trinity.

Ryan M. McGraw, By Good and Necessary Consequence, 6-7.

In Luke 22:28–30, Jesus says to His disciples, “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” In verse 28, Jesus sets His comments in the context of His own “trials,” a clear reference to His incarnate ministry and sufferings. From what has been seen in Isaiah 53, the Son’s experience of these trials was specifically His obedience to the will of His Father. In verse 29, Jesus proceeds to speak of the Father “bestow[ing]” a kingdom upon Him. In light of what Jesus has said in verse 28, the clear implication is that this bestowal has come through His obedience in His “trials.” Because the Son has obeyed the Father, the Father has “bestowed” upon Him a kingdom. Here is the same, familiar obedience-for-reward dynamic. However, the word that Jesus uses to say that His Father has “bestowed” a kingdom upon Him is incredibly significant. The word that Jesus uses (διατίθημι; diatithēmi) is the verbal form of diathēkē and speaks specifically and narrowly of a covenantal conferral. To diatithēmi something is to confer it in accordance with covenantal terms. In Luke 22:29, then, Jesus explicitly declares that because of His obedience, the Father has bestowed a kingdom upon Him by covenant.

In light of both scriptural analogies and direct statement, the character of the obedience-for-reward relationship among the persons of the Trinity comes into clearer focus. The rewarded obedience of the Son occurs within a covenantal framework.

STEPHEN G. MYERS, GOD TO US – COVENANT THEOLOGY IN SCRIPTURE, 129-130.

In fact, it was these general commands of the creation ordinances that were the most formative in shaping the daily lives of Adam and Eve as they lived in communion with their Creator. It was obedience to these commands that shaped the patterns of their days and lives and that worked to make Adam and Eve increasingly like the God whose image they bore. Indeed, in observing the creation ordinances, Adam and Eve would reflect the character and activity of God. In subduing and keeping the Sabbath, they would mirror God’s own work in the creation week. In marriage’s plurality within unity, they would reflect the plurality within unity of God Himself.

Footnote: Again, to be explicit, this does not imply that roles within marriage are based on the relationships among the persons of the Trinity. They are not. Such an implication is nowhere in the biblical text.

STEPHEN G. MYERS, GOD TO US – COVENANT THEOLOGY IN SCRIPTURE, 102.