A thorough study of Matthew 16, both exegetically and from the early church. (By Brittany C. Burnette, a student of Dr. Dan Wallace at Dallas Seminary, Texas. )
The Petrine school of interpretation. (Brittany Burnette)
Part 2 of the Petrine interpretation. (B. Burnette) Cyprian’s writings are especially important to understand, especially his disagreement with Stephen, the bishop of Rome, in 256-257 AD. The bishop of Rome, Stephen, claimed he was the “bishop of bishops” or top bishop, and Cyprian and Firmillian of Caesarea and 86 bishops together called a council in Carthage, in North Africa in 258 AD and rebuked Stephen for his arrogant claim, and decreed, “no one bishop has the right to claim that they are “bishop of bishops”. Clearly, they disagreed with the claim of the bishop of Rome, which later in history, came back around in the Papacy. The Eastern Orthodox Churches disagree with the claims of the bishop of Rome. Their view is closer to Cyprian and Firmillian’s more ancient view. Clearly, the Papal claims are not biblical, nor are they found in early Church History.
Some of Webster’s research is in articles on Cyprian and debate with Steve Ray.
The Christological school of interpretation. (Brittany Burnette)
The Petra = Peter’s confession of faith school of interpretation. (Brittany Burnette)
Part 2 of the Petra = Peter’s confession of Faith (Fide) interpretation. (Brittany Burnette)
Also, at Triablogue, there are many articles on the Papacy and Matthew 16 by John Bugay, Steve Hays, and Jason Enwger. Just search under Papacy and you will get a wealth of information.