PROTESTANTS = CUCKS

A Eurobarometer poll conducted in autumn 2006 found that 71% of Swedes supported legalising same-sex marriage, with a high of 87% in Stockholm County and a low of 58% in Jönköping County. This public approval was the second highest in the European Union at the time

Attached: 1493507937341.jpg (1266x960, 554K)

>sponsored by lips
avoided by nips

Fuck off, don't speak for all protestants motherfucker, if Swedes were evangelical they would be absolutely based and anti-faggot!!

I'd like to titty fuck the fat one

Protestantism is all heresy

>catholics
>not cucks

Attached: 56f45f2b150000ad000b325f.jpg (720x523, 86K)

The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement.The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholicsand were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Lutheran or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent.(A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”,Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine

The fathers of the church spoke as they did because they regarded themselves as interpreters of the Scriptures. Therefore they are not to be made a substitute for the Scriptures;nor can the Scriptures be understood apart from the authoritative interpretation which tradition places upon them...if tradition is primitive, Protestant theology must admit that ‘Scripture alone’ requires redefinition. (Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels, Harper & Row: New York, N. Y., 1964, p. 180 – bold emphasis mine.)

The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed tothe varying opinions of heretical sects—together form one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, thatthe church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key and true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse. (Philip Schaff,History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1981 ed., vol. 3, p. 606 – bold emphasis mine.)

Several publications by evangelicals have argued that the doctrine of sola scriptura was practiced, though implicitly, in the hermeneutical thinking of the early church. Such an argument is using a very specific agenda for the reappropriation of the early church: reading the ancient Fathers through the leans of post-Reformational Protestantism…Scripture can never stand completely independent of the ancient consensus of the church’s teaching without serious hermeneutical difficulties…the real question, as the patristic age discovered, is, Which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible?(D. H. Williams,Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, pp. 229, 234 – bold emphasis mine.)

Valtentinians and Basilidians and Saturnillians;each introduced/brought in privately and seperately its own/private opinion(ekastos idiōs kai etepoiōs idian doxan pareisēgagosan), and from them came false Christs and false prophets and false apostles who destroyed the unity of the Church by their poisonous doctrine against God and against his Christ.(Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History, IV.22 – Greek from the Loeb Classical Library,Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 1.376 – English trans. mine.)

But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation,according to their private [ton idion] sense [noun– mind/understanding], it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. (Athanasius,Discourses Against the Arians, I.XI.37 – NPNF 4. 327.)

For being forced from the conceptions or rather misconceptions of their own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding, according to their wont, they discern not their meaning;but laying down their own [tēn idian- private] irreligion as a sort of canon [kanona- rule] of interpretation, they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it…(Athanasius,Discourses Against the Arians, I.XII.52 – NPNF 4. 337.)

Gnostic private judgement