The Vincentian Canon

[rlvaughn]

The Vincentian Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins (perhaps stated simplisticly) asserts that the proper belief is that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. Feel free to flesh out the details. I want to give three examples of how I might apply the Vincentian Canon.

1. Salvation by grace through faith is believed everywhere, always and by all. Some may add to it, but nevertheless hold it as a basis. If we accept the Vincentian Canon, shouldn't we hold that which is universally agreed upon and discard the rest?
2. Believers' baptism is believed everywhere, always and by all. Some may accept infant baptism as well, but nevertheless hold that believers' baptism is true. If we accept the Vincentian Canon, shouldn't we hold that which is universally agreed upon and discard the rest?
3. Baptism by immersion is believed everywhere, always and by all. Some may also allow for sprinkling and pouring, but nevertheless hold immersion as a true form of baptism. If we accept the Vincentian Canon, shouldn't we hold that which is universally agreed upon and discard the rest?

 

[Matt Black]

4. No one eschatological theory has been believed by all always everywhere - therefore we should discard all such theories as idle and vain speculations.
5. All everywhere always agree that the Bible is God's inspired word. Others have added doctrines such as inerrancy and KJVOism. Apply Vincent's rule, we should discard inerrancy and KJVOism.

NB #1 would entail the rejection of both Calvinism and Arminianism. Also, applying #1 in, say, 1500, what answer would you get?

 

[Scott Smith]

The Vincentian Cannon establishes a "safe" base for theology, as a guard against "innovation" though not neccesarily "development." Thus, while it validates the practices of Baptist Churches (believer's baptism specifically), it does not serve as a strong criticism of Churches which preform more than just believers baptism. Additionally, I think you're being equivocal here, you can't jump from saying "believers baptism" is accepted everywhere, always and by all (which is true) to saying "believers baptism as the only valid means of baptism" has been believed everywhere, always and by all (which isn't true.) Now, you can critique infant baptism on the basis that it is in manifest contradiction to what has been believed everywhere, always and by all concerning baptism, but such an arguement would have to be made directly from Scripture as after the Apostolic Era there weren't a lot of definative statements made about the nature of baptism. Thus, the Cannon hasn't gotten you any farther than good ole' sola scriptura.

 

[rlvaughn]

Hi, Scott. Welcome to the Baptist Board. Thanks for the comments. You probably should know a little background. This thread is kind of a spin-off from a thread on which I asked Matt about his knowing something is accurate "Because the Church tells me so." IITim 3:16 and infallibility

I am not particularly a proponent of the Vincentian Canon, but was trying to think of how I would look at it if I were - so probably not unusual that it might come off as equivocal and/or inconsistent. Were I earnestly trying to prove believers' baptism, I would make my argument from Scripture.

 

[rlvaughn]

Here is an example of one arguing for infant baptism based on the Vincentian Canon.

But the belief of the historic Church is that we Christians bring our infants to be joined to Christ in holy baptism and - very importantly - bring them up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

Those who practice infant baptism might turn to Luke 18:15, 16: "Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; ... Jesus called them to Him and said, 'Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.' " Baptism is how babies have been brought to Christ.

We might turn to the Book of Acts, where Cornelius and the Philippian jailer are baptized along with their households, which, presumably, included children. Finally, we might point out that New Testament baptism fulfills Old Testament circumcision. You don't hear of guys in the Old Testament holding out for adult circumcision.

The proponents of "believers' baptism," on the other hand, insist that a person must first come to faith in Christ before baptism. They might point to the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch - also in the Book of Acts - who first believed and then was baptized. They might turn to Mark 16:16, where Jesus says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

So you've got an arsenal of passages. Who's right?

St. Vincent specialized in such dilemmas, which leave modern Christians divided. He can help, though, only if the parties in the debates agree to embrace what the Church has taught, even if they don't like it. Let's put infant baptism to the test.

Everywhere. There is no known place where the Gospel spread - east or west - that the Church did not baptize her infants.

Always. Early Christian writers who address the subject view infant baptism as a foregone conclusion: The children of Christians were baptized. Obviously, nonbelieving adults who came to Christ were baptized, too. Infant baptism is ancient. "Believers' baptism" enters after the Reformation.

By all. "Everybody's doing it" is certainly true of infant baptism. Even today, at least 80 percent of Christendom baptizes babies.

So, when a friend criticizes infant baptism - or bishops, or weekly Communion, or whatever - as not biblical, you've got a friend to guide you in how, historically, the Church decided what the inspired Scriptures teach. He's St. Vincent of Lerins. - Peter E. Gillquist, Antiochian Orthodox Church

John Mark Ministries

 

[Ray Berrian]

If the Vincentian Canon is to preserve all ancient theologocal doctrines that all good Christians receive, how do we deal with the various alleged times for baptism and the modes of water baptism?

It is true that the baptism of infants goes far back into Christian centuries. Should this not be the correct accepted time for water baptism? Is this kind of baptism not codified in the Vincentian Canon long before the Protestant Reformation?

 

[Matt Black]

Like I said, the answer Vincent gives depends on at what time period in Church History you ask the question...

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Like I said, the answer Vincent gives depends on at what time period in Church History you ask the question...

We seem to be on Mars' Hill. Christian faith, ituttut

 

[Matt Black]

Meaning?

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Meaning?

Hello Matt.Didn’t know anyone was up but me. Came in to turn-off computer before hitting the sack. Philosophical musings with zeal, perhaps without expressing opinion to religion, or at least from scripture. Christian faith, ituttut

 

[Scott Smith]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Hi, Scott. Welcome to the Baptist Board. Thanks for the comments. You probably should know a little background. This thread is kind of a spin-off from a thread on which I asked Matt about his knowing something is accurate "Because the Church tells me so." IITim 3:16 and infallibility

I am not particularly a proponent of the Vincentian Canon, but was trying to think of how I would look at it if I were - so probably not unusual that it might come off as equivocal and/or inconsistent. Were I earnestly trying to prove believers' baptism, I would make my argument from Scripture.

Ah, good deal, sorry for the mistake