To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (544089 ) 2/23/2004 9:44:22 AM From: Neocon Respond to of 769670 Actually, that is not true. Luther and Calvin were theologians, and they claimed to purify doctrine by judging, as much as possible, on the basis of Biblical attestation, rather than tradition, although they clearly accepted tradition to some degree, as a guide to reading the Bible. However, they considered their readings pretty authoritative, and established hierarchical churches. Only a few Protestant denominations encouraged the individual to interpret Scripture for himself, and even then, there was some guidance presumed by the sheer fact of membership and submission to the particular sect. The main difference between Protestantism and the Catholic Church was over the role of extra- scriptural tradition. Christ asserted that the Old Testament would remain in force: Matthew 5 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. But that his followers would have to do even better than was commanded there. It was Paul who made the distinction between Mosaic Law and the Moral Law, and made the argument that only the Moral Law was obligatory on Christians.