The Vincentian Canon

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by rlvaughn, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    25
    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?
     
  2. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  3. Scott Smith

    Scott Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    25
    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.
     
  5. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    25
    Here is an example of one arguing for infant baptism based on the Vincentian Canon.

    John Mark Ministries
     
  6. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like I said, the answer Vincent gives depends on at what time period in Church History you ask the question...
     
  8. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    We seem to be on Mars' Hill. Christian faith, ituttut
     
  9. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Meaning? :confused:
     
  10. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  11. Scott Smith

    Scott Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, good deal, sorry for the mistake
     

Share This Page

Loading...