[BenKenobi]

“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?

[Iscool]

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.

Talk about private interpretation...Jesus never said his church would prevail...

You constantly mis-quote scripture apparently to justify your religion...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“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.”

Clues and overt statements are two very different things.
One is an assumption. One is stated. I build doctrine
on specific stated truths. I don’t draw between the lines
to connect dots that appear on the same page. Do as you
wish.

“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.”

Yes. I believe Peter was given authority in the Kingdom,
not in the Church on earth.

Again, for your perspective here, you are assuming. I do
not find arguments from silence persuasive.

best,
ampu