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…

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6

Good and necessary consequence arguments are deductions from the Scriptures. We read the text, find that it says something plainly, and from its plain meaning can infer consequential truths from it.

Being able to approach Scripture in this way is vital. In fact, one of the key issues in the Reformation was that Rome attacked Sola Scriptura by saying “if Scripture is the only authority, then it should teach doctrine plainly.” Essentially, Rome was saying “quote me a verse.” More on this to come in a future post.

In opposition to this, the Reformed argued that consequential truths may be derived from Scripture to establish doctrine in the church.

Understanding this way of approaching Scripture is vital to a robust Reformed hermeneutic.

In this series, we will look at what it means to argue form Scripture in this way. We will examine whether this principal of interpretation can be found in Scripture itself (it can). Looking to the Reformed scholastics, we will see how they understood this method. Finally, we will apply it to a passage of Scripture and see how it can be an effective way of establishing doctrine from Scripture.

God has sufficiently revealed Himself in His Word. Therefore, we should conclude from Scripture what it intends to reveal to us.

Stay Tuned! More to Come!



I am a Reformed Presbyterian. I offer all content as my own personal reflections. I am not a licensed minister.