“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
“I build doctrine on specific stated truths.”
Yet you say:
“Peter was given authority in the Kingdom, not in the Church on earth.”
Wow. Ok. This is despite the fact that Christ explicitly tells Peter, ‘Whatsoever you bind on Earth, shall be bound on Heaven?’
Sounds to me that Peter’s being given both, authority in the Kingdom, and authority in the Church on Earth, such that his authority in the Church on earth (bind on Earth), shall extend to heaven (bound in heaven).