Good and Necessary Consequence

Logical Implications and Biblical Hermeneutics

Statements have implications. If we claim “All men are mortal,” then by implication “Socrates is a mortal” because “Socrates is a man”. But not only Socrates, but any particular person who is human is also mortal if “All men are mortal” is true. You and I, that guy or gal over there, all of us, are touched by the implication of that one statement. Similarly, the statement “The Old Testament is God’s word” implies that 1 Kings and Ecclesiastes (and 37 other books contained therein) are God’s word because they are part of the Old Testament.

In reality, every single statement we make has implications. That is to say, every statement we make not only affirms or denies the subject about which it speaks, but it extends beyond the immediate subject to affirm or deny other matters which are naturally related to it.

The Square of Opposition is a helpful diagram which shows the relationships between the four basic kinds of statements where “S” stands for the subject of the statement and “P” stands for the predicate. What this diagram shows is that once the truth or falsehood of any given statement is known it immediately produces three other inferences.

My purpose in saying all of this is to make a rather modest point. Whenever you say anything, you necessarily imply many other things unavoidably. This basic truth underlies an important statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith, namely, that “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” (WCF 1.6).

The phrase “good and necessary consequence” simply refers to the same principle I have been pointing to in this post. Why does it matter? It matters because it directly obliterates the well meaning, but nonetheless foolish, idea that if the Bible doesn’t say something directly then Christians are not bound to believe or observe it. A word for this idea is “biblicism”. It sounds good to say “I am a biblicist; I believe what the Bible says and nothing but what the Bible says”, and yet with a little consideration we might find that this is actually a rather unbiblical idea. It isn’t hard to prove that this idea is silly and unbiblical either.

Take for instance the statement made by Yahweh, “I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5a). Everyone, even the self proclaimed biblicist, takes the implications of this statement for granted. Nowhere in the Bible will you find the following statements:

“Zeus is not actually God.”

“Ishtar is actually a demon and not a real god.”

“Thor is no god at all.”

Of course there is no need for those statements though, is there? Why? Because everyone understands intuitively, as a part of normal speech, that statements have implication. The statement from Isaiah 45:5 is essentially “Yahweh is the only true God” or “If a being is not Yahweh, then they are not a real God” and from that point we all finish the syllogism without much thought and apply it on repeat to each instance of a supposed god.

1. If a being is not Yahweh, then they are not a real God.

2. Zeus is not Yahweh.

3. Therefore, Zeus is not a real God.

Every biblicist I know would affirm this immediately. But on what basis? On the basis of good and necessary consequence!

The Bible says many things directly that are of incredible importance but, logically speaking, it implies a great host of things beyond what it says directly. In fact, it is not unreasonable to say that there is more which the Christian is duty bound to believe and/or do by implication than there is by direct command.

In light of this it becomes very important that we 1) acknowledge the reality of implications (good and necessary consequence) and 2) that we become workmen approved who study the Scriptures carefully to see what it commands and what it infers. As such, the study of formal logic is a great benefit to studying the Scriptures and being faithful to all of God’s commands and the implications thereof.

It is the notion of “good and necessary consequence” which has divided many theologically reformed Protestants from the non-reformed. Baptism being a particularly pertinent issue. The biblicist will say, “show me an instance of a single baby being baptized in the New Testament!” The Reformed logician will say, “I need only show you that the children of believers are in the covenant, and that all in the covenant should have the sign of the covenant.” It is not necessary to have the Bible directly say, “Baptize your babies” nor show an instance of a particular infant baptism if it is implied by good and necessary consequence that children of believers are Holy (connected by covenant through their parents). 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 does, in fact, teach that children of even one believing parent are holy and Peter tells us in Acts 2:39 that the covenant promises are for our children also.

I don’t mean for this post to be a full-on apologetic for infant baptism. It is actually only one example of the principle. It simply serves as a good example of the fact that it is not necessary for a thing to be said directly in order for it to be implied by extension. Another critical example, which all believing Christian can affirm without quandary, is the Trinity.

There is no single verse in Scripture that perfectly teaches every aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather you have a collection of teachings and their implications. We have the above reference in Isaiah which tells us there is only one God (as well as many other places in Scripture which affirm Yahweh’s unique status as the one true deity). We also have scripture passages which clearly teach the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, along with their simultaneous existence, such as Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3:21-22.

Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

Finally, we have passages which tell us that each person, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are God.

The Father and the Son:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1,14)

The Spirit:

“But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” (Acts 5:1-4)

Altogether we have the teaching that there is one God, in whom three distinct persons subsist simultaneously equal in power and glory.

Nowhere does the Bible simply say, “God is a Trinity.” But the Bible definitely teaches, through implication and logical inference, that God’s nature is triune. To demand that Christians withhold faith or practice based upon biblical implications and that they only believe or practice what is stated directly is to become a heretic. Most biblicists are not heretics, they are just wildly inconsistent in their own position (thankfully).

We all know statements have implications. We couldn’t function each day apart from that belief. We couldn’t hold men accountable for their words, nor successfully communicate to our boss, children, spouse, etc., without the implicit belief that statements have implications. So let’s affirm the concept of “good and necessary consequence” when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures and what duties God requires of man. We may still find room to disagree about what is implied in some cases, but let us away with foolish notions like, “If you can’t show me a single passage that directly teaches it then it is unbiblical.” Even that hypothetical statement assumes the power of implication to make its point and is therefore implicitly self-defeating.