We agree on the above.
Your definition of eisegesis appears wholly subjective as you apply it to my comments. I was not simply expounding on a single text, nor reading into it. Shouldn't we take the Bible as a whole and not simply as a series of disjointed, unconnected verses? The context matters and the entire Bible gives context.
This specific example is perfect for purposes of illustration:
"Peter is an apostle and we should expect apostles in God’s True Church" isn’t derived from a single verse or even a part of a verse, but the entire Bible.
That is something you already know to be true. If you don't then step back and see the Bible as a whole. God's True Church always has a formal hierarchy and a priesthood. In the NT, apostles are replaced as needed. It is silent on that ending or being stopped. That's the reasonable conclusion, then. We should expect apostles and order in God's True Church.
I am not forcing that on the text, that is its plain reading.
Let me ask again a question that you haven't answer, perhaps it is troubling: To whom in Pontus would you deliver the Epistle of Peter?
How could anyone read the following and not conclude that you were expositing on 1 Peter 1:1-2?
Your original post (reformatted to save space): Let’s look at First Peter 1:1-2. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.” So we have a some establishing facts: 1. Peter is an apostle and we should expect apostles in God’s True Church. 2. His audience isn’t everybody, but he addresses himself to the elect. The elect are both blessed by the grace of Christ (sprinkled with his blood) and, here’s the kicker - they’re obedient. Let’s continue. 1 Pet 1:3-9 reads:...End of this portion of your post.
Shouldn't we take the Bible as a whole and not simply as a series of disjointed, unconnected verses? The context matters and the entire Bible gives context.
Yes which is why many of your dogmatic positions will be very difficult to support. However, if you are drawing upon other verses to support your conclusion, it is customary to cite them.
I am not forcing that [apostles and order in God's True Church] on the text, that is its plain reading.
How do you deduce this from 1 Peter 1:1-2? From this verse, you can deduce that Peter was an apostle (he states so) and that he had communication with churches (which may or may not be associated with his apostolic position - he doesn't say). There is no harm in saying that a verse doesn't teach a particular point but there is no way that you can use this passage to support your conclusion unless you read it into the text. I have no problem with someone drawing an inference from Scripture provided there is reasonable support for it. But apostolic succession is just not anyway to be seen in this verse.
In the NT, apostles are replaced as needed.
You keep mentioning this like it is some Biblical truth that everyone must accept. How about some evidence? I assume you are referring to the replacement of Judas with Matthias in Acts 1. While the event, apparently to fulfill the Scripture Peter cites, was reported, where is the command (direct or implied) that this practice is to continue? Just reading the text, it would be logical to conclude from what the passage says that this office of Apostle is a special case office. Verse 22 tells us that the purpose of a big-a Apostle is to be a witness of the resurrected Christ. To fulfill this role, Justus and Matthias needed to meet specific requirements: followers of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to His ascension. In other words, they needed to be eyewitnesses to these events. Verses 22-23 seem to indicate that specific requirements were in place to assure a physical eyewitness. Obviously, physical eyewitnesses to these events are a limited pool which in all likelihood became non-existent with the death of John.
Let me ask again a question that you haven't answer, perhaps it is troubling: To whom in Pontus would you deliver the Epistle of Peter?
I didn't answer it because it didn't seem germane to the issue. However, you answered my off-topic question (which I didn't mean as a hostile question but to satisfy my curiosity), so I'll answer yours.
If I were a small-a apostle given responsibility to deliver Peter's letter, I imagine I'd deliver the letter to a leader in the Church at Pontus. Based on the NT evidence, in all likelihood, he would be called an elder.