“Matthew references Isaiah. This is the reference that
Christ was making when he gave the Key to Peter.
Why give him a key at all?”
First, the closest the NT has to the administrative key
is in Revelations 3:7, where Christ says He holds the
key of David. Strange He has it and Peter doesn’t, if
it were the same key...
You seem to be saying Jesus was referring to Isaiah
when He is quoted in Matthew. The passage does not say
this, so it remains an interesting assumption on your
part that can never become more than that.
I do believe Peter was given authority in the Kingdom,
but over the Church, since the Kingdom is specifically
stated.
I also believe you are assuming what Christ said to Peter involves hereditary transmission, but again, it isn’t in the text, so it remains an assumption on your part.
Since supposed holders of that authority in this age are
prohibited from marrying and reproducing, it seems to me
that your hereditary argument is pretty thin gruel...
Having responded to your arguments a couple times...
I point out again that IF the Church was intended to continue to pass along Apostolic authority, it would
have been revealed and commanded in the NT, just like
all the instructions for choosing elders and deacons
are delineated.
Neither is present in the New Testament.
You can choose between two actual Biblical examples of
choosing Apostles, if you believe we are to do so today:
1. Casting lots, as in Acts
2. Christ Himself appearing to a non-Christian and opening his eyes, then making him an Apostle, they “seasoning” him
for 15 or more years... as when He chose the Apostle Paul
Which do you pick?
best,
ampu
“First, the closest the NT has to the administrative key
is in Revelations 3:7, where Christ says He holds the
key of David. Strange He has it and Peter doesn’t, if
it were the same key.”
T’would be why I said th’keys were similar, not th’ same.
“You seem to be saying Jesus was referring to Isaiah
when He is quoted in Matthew. The passage does not say
this, so it remains an interesting assumption on your
part that can never become more than that.”
Except that the Patristic literature backs me up all the way here. What, do you think I’m clever enough to invent this myself?
“I point out again that IF the Church was intended to continue to pass along Apostolic authority, it would
have been revealed and commanded in the NT.”
Which is what Christ did with Matthew. He explicitly said that his Church would prevail, and that he was building his Church on Peter, the Rock. That’s a pretty strong clue that the office is intended to be passed on from one holder to another.
Does it make sense to interpret the passage as saying that the Key is a one-time gift to Peter that would not be handed down to anyone else, while at the same time claiming that your Church would be perpetual? Hardly.
Does this interpretation appear prior to the 16th century? No. Oddly convenient that Luther would interpret a passage to benefit himself, no?