This site goes by the name “Baptist Dogmatics,” which may raise eyebrows for several reasons, so in this initial post we will provide a basic explanation of what we mean in using that label. We begin with a definition of dogmatics provided by James P. Boyce, founder of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the 5th and 7th president of the Southern Baptist Convention:
Christian Dogmatics is not confined, as is Biblical, to the facts and theories and statements of doctrine expressly and formally set forth in the Scriptures. It comprises in addition such philosophical explanations as seem necessary to make a complete and harmonious system. These additions are not necessarily non-scriptural, for they are often the embodiment of the very essence of Bible truth, though not of its formal utterances. They may be as much a part of Scripture as the theory of gravitation is of the revelation of nature. They should never be so far unscriptural as not to be either probable inferences from the Word of God or natural explanations of its statements. The more perfectly they accord with that word, and the greater the proportion of its facts which they explain, the more clearly do they establish their own truth, and the more forcibly do they demand universal acceptance. Failure to explain all difficulties or to harmonize all facts does not deprive them of confidence, but only teaches the need of further investigation. Direct opposition, however, to any one scriptural truth is enough to prove the existence of error in any Christian Dogmatic statement. (Abstract of Systematic Theology,
In this definition, Boyce distinguishes dogmatics from Biblical Theology (this is pre-Vos) in that Biblical Theology examines the express and formal statements of doctrine in Scripture itself. Notice, dogmatics does not neglect biblical theology; it simply isn’t “confined” to those terms particularly used in Scripture. It “comprises in addition” the explanations necessitated by Scripture to make a unified system. Dogmatics, then, is like the exposition of the truths of Scripture, which often requires terminology not used explicitly in Scripture. The more it makes sense of Scripture, and the further it is from contradicting some express statement of Scripture, the more weight dogmatic statements carry.
The primary doctrine used to explain and defend the task of dogmatics is, of course, the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine does not appear in its express terms in the Scriptures, but it explains the Scriptures’ teaching with such weight that to deny it is to absolutely speak against Scripture.
In using the term “dogmatics” after “Baptist,” we are making the conscious decision to make “dogmatics” the substantive statement and “Baptist” a descriptive statement of our ecclesiastical location. We use dogmatics in both its denotative (definitional) sense provided above and in its connotative sense. We know that the term “dogmatics” is generally taken to mean that someone gives particular weight to the Christian tradition in his theological formulation. We believe that such doctrines as the Trinity (particularly in its Western formulation), the hypostatic union, penal substitutionary atonement, and justification by faith alone in Christ alone are settled doctrines (“dogmas/dogmata”) that make sense of the Scripture’s testimony.
In using the “Baptist” descriptor, we mean two things, one historical and the other situational. First, we mean that we also believe that the Particular Baptist developments within the Puritan community were appropriate consummations of the truths recovered in the Reformation. Second, we mean that we are working as Baptists from within that historical stream. Thus, since we believe we are Christians first, and Baptists as a particular community within Christianity, we are not simply defending congregationalism or credobaptism, nor do we aim to interact with only those in our own stream. However, we are Baptists, and so we are not going to refrain from speaking about historic Baptist doctrines like those listed or those within the Puritan and Protestant Scholastic streams, such as inerrancy, the necessity of regeneration, the gospel call, and so forth.
Finally, here we would also like to make clear statements about where we stand even within the Baptist tradition. We hold to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (which expressly seeks to stand within the same broad and narrow streams that we seek to occupy). This means we are neither dispensationalists nor new covenant theologians/progressive covenantalists, and certainly not Arminian or “Traditionalists.” We are thankful for the work of such dispensationalists as John MacArthur, New Covenant Theologians/Progressive Covenantalists as D.A. Carson, Doug Moo, Stephen Wellum, Peter Gentry, and Tom Schreiner, and even the work of those Traditionalists who helped to reaffirm inerrancy in the Southern Baptist Convention. However, we hold to that covenant theology expressed by the earlier Particular Baptists and current Reformed Baptists such as Pascal Denault, Richard Barcellos, and Sam Renihan. We affirm such doctrines as sovereign election and particular redemption, the law-gospel distinction, and the tripartite division of the law (including our affirmation of the delightful Lord’s Day Sabbath).